Hillary Supporter Pooh-Poohs the Mention of RFK’s Assassination

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE Hillary Supporter Pooh-Poohs the Mention of RFK's Assassination While DNC Continues to Slumber In his Huffington Post article, "Clinton and RFK Deserve Better", my good friend, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Pooh-poohs Hillary Clinton's mention of Robert Kennedy's assassination in the context of this election, and all the while the DNC slumbers. What is he suggesting , that she's sleep deprived again? I think that's getting kinda old, and I also think that it's way past time for the DNC to come out of hibernation. On May 11th while appearing on Meet The Press Hillary's campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, made the same kind of statement to Tim Russert. He said that in order for Hillary to win the nomination "something big" would have to happen. Then Russett asked, "An act of God, or something catastrophic?", and he said, "Yes, something big would have to happen–absolutely." Hillary's behavior has betrayed her to be nothing less than America's version of a Third World demagogue–a woman who is so desperate and hungry for power that the thought of seeing it slip through her fingers has caused her to slip into her own private realm of reality. Personally, I'm seriously concerned that she might have left the ranch and gone camping on us. So at this point it behooves us to take her every utterance dead seriously. Yet, nervous over the growing fracture in the Democratic Party, the DNC is vigorously reminding Democratic voters of the importance of backing the Democratic nominee in order to win the November election. The problem with their position, however, is the DNC is placing all of the responsibility for Democratic success on the voters, while skirting its own responsibility to act in an appropriate and decisive manner. They don't seem to recognize that party loyalty goes both ways. In light of what the nation has gone through in the past seven years, political parties can no longer expect the voters to just fall in and march in lockstep to the party line. That's what's gotten us to where we are today–involved in a senseless war, without jobs, losing our homes, and with the very pillars of our society under attack. The Democratic Party is sure to argue that it is for precisely these reasons that we must stick together, however. But that is only true if you're prepared to accept the proposition that everything that's gone wrong in the past seven years is solely the fault of the Republicans, and that is clearly not the case. While it is true that our current condition is primarily due to Republican greed, shortsightedness, an ineptitude, it is also true that we find ourselves in this condition as a result of the total impotence of the Democratic Party. Democratic politicians have been absolutely gutless for the past seven years. Instead of fighting for the soul of this nation and the ideals they profess to believe in, Democrats have been basing their actions on the direction of the wind; and instead of standing up for what was in the best interest of the nation, they were cowering in the basement on Capitol Hill, desperately trying to protect their own political careers. But now that the Republican Party has all but self-destructed, the Democrats have chosen this moment to come strutting out to tell us all they want to do to protect our interest. Where were they before the Republican Party all but dropped dead of gluttony? If the Republican Party is indeed in the throes of death, it's only resulting from Democrats allowing them to gorge themselves to death. And even now, the Democrats don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to two egomaniacal Republicrats, as the wreak havoc within the Democrats' own ranks. The DNC should have told Hillary Clinton initially that changing the rules regarding Florida and Michigan in the middle of the game purely for her accommodation was out of the question. They should have been unequivocally emphatic that the decision was made in the beginning of the primaries, and everyone agreed, including Hillary, that the delegates from those states would not be counted due their violation of DNC rules. Case closed. Had the DNC been immediately decisive when the Clintons initially sent up their trial balloon, they would have recognized that they were stepping over the line of fairness. But when the DNC was indecisive, and showed a sign of weakness in carrying out its responsibility, the Clintons smelled blood, and now their trial balloon has become a demand. So catering to the Clintons and dragging its feet in this matter is only going to complicate things further. The Clintons have no intentions of allowing the Democratic Party to remain unified. Before the Clintons decided upon their course of action, they not only took into account the affect it would have on Obama supporters, but also how it would affect all fair minded voters across this land. They then decided upon a gamble. They knew that due to Obama's popularity, Hillary would never become president unless he was brought down. So they decided they were going to do whatever they had to do to tear Sen. Obama down, then even if Hillary didn't get the nomination this year, Obama would still be so damaged that he would lose the election, in which case, she would run in 20012. They've already accepted the fact that their course of action would deeply divide the party, but, ironically, they're depending on Sen. Obama's good character to help rally support for Hillary if, and when, she's allowed to run. They're also gambling that Democrats are so desperate to get the Republicans out of office, that they'd hold their nose and vote for Hillary in spite of her behavior when the time comes. They realized it's a big gamble, but they calculated that a slim chance was better than no chance at all. Of course, there are those who will say that not even the Clintons could be that Machiavellian in their calculations, but look at the facts–this is a woman who agreed not to count the votes of Michigan and Florida, then even while ahead, managed to leave her name on the ballad in Michigan as an insurance policy. And we mustn't forget that one of Hillary's earliest influences was radical organizer Saul Alinsky. In fact, she did her colleges thesis on him–a document that the Clintons have managed to be kept securely under lock and key at Wellesley College. But now, Hillary's current tactics are right out of Alinsky's 1971 book, "Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals." Among Alinsky's rules is to always "personalize " the issue. He taught that "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have." He also says that "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." That rule comes to mind in Hillary's declaration that "all Obama has is a speech." Another one of Alinsky's rules is, "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Thus, Hillary's threat to divide the party. Alinsky goes on to advise that you "Maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition", and "push a negative hard and deep." And finally he instructs that you "pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it"–thus, Hillary's comment, "Hard working, White voters." Hillary has held to Alinsky so snugly that it's almost as if he's her campaign manager, post mortem. But I think even Alinsky would frown upon this campaign. So the DNC might as well make its stand now–and the earlier the better. Because there is nothing they can do to head off a crisis within the party short of handing the nomination to Hillary. It is part of Hillary's game plan to polarize the party, because she knew from the very beginning that if all else failed, her end game would involve a scorched Earth, and a Hail Mary. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com   Stay on top of what's going on around you. From Hip Hop to world and national news--stay informed about those things that impact both the Black community and the entire world, as interpreted by Dr. Boyce Watkins, and some of the nation's top Black writers. Stay in touch with Your Black World  www.yourblackworld.com/.  It's our piece of the net.

Sphere: Related Content

HILLARY, WHAT’S THE POINT?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE HILLARY, WHAT'S THE POINT? After Tuesday's primary results I had hoped that I had written the name Hillary Clinton for the last time during this election. But in spite of the fact that there is virtually no legitimate path for her to gain the nomination, she simply refuses to see the writing on the wall. Thus, she appealed to the superdelegates on Wednesday for yet more time to defy the will of the electorate. It has been reported that Hillary's campaign is running badly in the red, so she's invested an additional 6 million dollars of her own money into her effort for the nomination, bringing her personal loan to the campaign to 11 million dollars. That has led to speculation that she is trying to hold out to strike a deal with Obama to both get reimbursement for her personal loan to the campaign, and also have Obama pay off her remaining debt in return for leaving the race. There is also speculation that she's trying to position herself for a spot on the Obama ticket as vice president. Many pundits suggest that Obama should accept either, or both deals with Hillary if they are indeed on the table. Their reasoning hinges on what they deem to be two very important considerations. First, having Hillary out of the race will clear the way for Obama to focus on John McCain, who has had a free ride thus far in the campaign. And secondly, pundits point to the result of several recent polls. Exit polls in Indiana indicate that half of Hillary Clinton supporters said they would not vote for Barack Obama if Hillary is forced out of the race. In addition, 70 percent of voters over 65 years of age voted for Hillary Clinton over Obama. It has been suggested, therefore, that an Obama/Clinton ticket in the general election would help Obama shore-up the demographic weaknesses in his campaign. But Obama supporters are not happy with either prospect, and his Black supporters are particularly unhappy with the suggestion of a possible deal. Obama's Black supporters point out that the Clinton campaign has repeatedly played the race card throughout the primaries, so why should their hard-earned political donations to Obama be used towards satisfying the very debt that Hillary incurred through the propagation of racial slander? They're also unhappy over the prospect of having someone on the ticket who is capable of such slander. In addition, many indicate that Hillary's irrational behavior in pursuit of the presidency causes them great concern over Barack Obama being the "one breath" between Hillary and the White House. The divisiveness of Hillary's campaign leaves Obama's White supporters also less than enthusiastic about using their political donations to satisfy her debt. They also point to the political baggage that Hillary would bring to the Democratic ticket. According to many Obama supporters, Hillary has not only forged a reputation for being disingenuous and lacking all credibility, but by recently joining McCain in calling for a "gas tax holiday", she's also defined herself as out of touch, and a pandering elitist. They feel, therefore, that having her on the ticket would undermine Obama's strongest argument against the Republicans–that they are out of touch, and pandering elitists. Then there's the issue of NAFTA and the hemorrhaging of American jobs out of the country. Obama supporters indicate that Republicans can make a strong argument that the current lack of jobs in the country is a direct result of NAFTA, an agreement that Bill Clinton signed into being and Hillary supported. They also point to the fact that even while Hillary was trying to distance herself from NAFTA during the primaries, Mark Penn, her top campaign adviser, was employed as a lobbyist for the Columbian government to create another free trade agreement just like it, or worse, which would take away even more American jobs. Republicans can also point out, as was pointed out in the Huffington Post, that in June 2005, Bill Clinton "was paid $800,000 by the Colombia-based Gold Service International to give four speeches throughout Latin America." The article went on to say that "The group's chief operating officer, Andres Franco, said in an interview that the group supports the congressional ratification of the free trade agreement and that, when Clinton was on his speaking tour, he expressed similar opinions." Republicans can also point to the matter of Hillary being ordered to testify in Los Angeles Superior Court in an FEC fraud case brought by California millionaire, Peter Paul. On April 25th Judge Munoz ruled that Hillary wouldn't have to testify until after the November election, but in making the highly unusual ruling, Judge Munoz remarked to David Kendall, Hillary's defense attorney, "Say hello to my friend, Bill." It doesn't matter whether the Clintons are actually guilty of any wrong doing or not--the circumstances surrounding the case, along with their lack of credibility, and the judges remarks gives the impression of both wrong doing and cronyism, a situation the Republicans will ride for all it's worth. But the bottom line is, most Obama supporters are former supporters of the Clintons, who at this point want nothing to do with either Bill or Hillary. Now that they see the Clinton propensity for lying, manipulation, and deceit to get what they want, these former supporters feel used. Their fondest wish, therefore, is that they could take back the loyalty and support that they vested in the Clintons in the past, but since that's not possible, they'll settle for just not having to feel like fools. But these former Clinton supporters are not just angry and disappointed, their anger is coached in the pain of watching the Clintons' single-minded lust for power cause a once highly respected couple to completely self-destruct. It feels like a personal failure. So even though it is now clear that they were wrong about the Clintons, sometimes it's more comforting to embrace a lie, than to have to face an ugly truth–an ugly truth that has forced them to watch what was thought to be a shining legacy, go down in flames. So at this point, what Obama supporters want more than anything else from the Clintons, is for them to simply, go away. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com     Stay on top of what's going on around you. From Hip Hop to world and national news--stay informed about those things that impact both the Black community and the entire world, as interpreted by Dr. Boyce Watkins, and some of the nation's top Black writers. Stay in touch with Your Black World  www.yourblackworld.com/.  It's our piece of the net.

Sphere: Related Content

CLINTON CREDIBILITY: A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE CLINTON CREDIBILITY: A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS Why are Democrats tolerating Hillary Clinton's selfish juggernaut to destroy the Democratic Party? They're sitting around allowing their nomination process to be corrupted, then asking, "Why can't Obama close the deal?" Open your eyes, Democrats! The man is fighting Hillary, Bill, the entire Republican Party, plus Rush Limbaugh and the entire FOX news staff. No wonder Democrats can't win an election. The Republicans must be falling down backwards laughing at their stupidity. Isn't there anyone left with enough common sense to see that their acting as accessories to Hillary's collusion with the Republican Party to sabotage the November election? Even the corporate media couldn't avoid reporting the unprecedented numbers of Republicans that crossed over to vote democratic in the Pennsylvania primary. ABC news quoted Bill Meck, a Republican voter for 41 years, as saying, he crossed over to vote Democratic because, "I wanted to be a part of the choice." That's Republican shorthand for I wanted to choose the Democratic nominee. ABC news went on to report that "many new registrants spoke openly about changing their party affiliation to give McCain "a better shot in November." The report indicates that in Pennsylvania's Perry and Northumberland counties –"historically conservative, having voted for Bush in 2004 in wide margins"–officials said that many voters said they were crossing over to help the Republican Party. The report indicated that crossover voting was "proportionally large" this year, and "the pattern echoes the Republican crossovers in the run-up to the Texas and Ohio primaries." Thus, they are effectively invalidating the results of the remaining primaries. The Republicans are openly manipulating the Democratic Party's selection process. And Hillary Clinton not only realizes that, but is just as openly colluding with the Republicans to blackmail the Democratic Party. She's forcing the Democrats to either dance to her music, or face the prospect of a fractured party and a possible defeat in the November. Hillary's using the clout that's being gleefully provided to her by her Republican comrades as leverage in an attempt to completely overrule the Democratic National Committee, and the agreement that all Democratic candidates signed--including herself-- not to count the votes from Florida and Michigan for violating the Democratic Party's rules. But now using those very results, of the Florida and Michigan primaries, to claim that she's ahead in the popular vote–and that's in spite of the fact that Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. From Hillary's point of view, her collusion with the Republican Party is a win, win situation--it keeps her campaign viable in the primaries, and as she sees it, gives her two shots at becoming president. It gives her the time to damage Obama as much as possible. As a result, she concludes, she will render Obama so damaged that even if she doesn't get the nomination this year, Obama will lose in November, and she'll still be young enough to run again in 20012. The Republicans benefit from this arrangement because they desperately want to run against Hillary. They know that she's severely damaged goods. Sen. Obama is so clean that the Republicans know that the only way they can go after him is by trying to smear anyone that he's ever said good morning to. But they can easily show that Hillary has a propensity for lying, and thus, cannot be trusted. If Hillary became the nominee, the Republicans can show that she flat-out lied about the Bosnian incident, and then once she was caught in the lie, she told another lie about why she lied. In addition, even while she was telling middle-class workers whose jobs had been outsourced that she was against NAFTA, it was revealed that she not only supported NAFTA, but even as she was speaking, both her top campaign advisor, Mark Penn, and her husband, Bill, were being paid by the Colombian government to lobby for yet another such agreement on it's behalf. Then, after claiming to fire Mrk Penn, she simply took his name off the door. An further, they can show that Hillary's unethical conduct goes all the way back to the very beginning of her career. Jerry Zeifman, who employed Hillary while he was chief counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings, indicated that he fired Hillary and refused to give her a letter of recommendation due to unethical behavior when she lied in a legal brief for the committee, and thereafter, attempted to cover it up by removing documents from the public domain. And now we find that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz has required Hillary Clinton to testify in a 1.2 million FEC civil fraud case brought against the Clintons by California Millionaire, Peter Paul. Judge Munoz ruled, however, that Hillary wouldn't have to testify until after the November election. In making the highly unusual ruling, Judge Munoz remarked to David Kendall, Hillary's defense attorney, Say hello to my friend, Bill. Yet, in light of all of this baggage, Hillary has gone before the American people, the Democratic Party, and the superdelegates and said, "I'm most electable." It has become abundantly clear that this lady doesn't even have a passing acquaintance with credibility, and it is past time for the superdelegates to bring this madness to an end. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com Stay on top of what's going on around you. From Hip Hop to world and national news--stay informed about those things that impact both the Black community and the entire world, as interpreted by Dr. Boyce Watkins, and some of the nation's top Black writers. Stay in touch with Your Black World www.yourblackworld.com/. It's our piece of the net.

Sphere: Related Content

JESUS WAS A LIBERAL

BENEATH THE SPIN ERIC L. WATTREE, SR. JESUS WAS A LIBERAL Well, November must be near, because the Republicans are already jumping into their swift boats. They desperately want to run against Hillary, but they've obviously determined that the Democratic nominee is going to be Obama, since they've already trotted out their designated lackey in the person of Kenneth Blackwell in the New York Sun. In his article, Beyond Obama's Beauty, Blackwell says, "We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender", then he immediately begins to attack Obama, the only Black candidate in the race. He then goes on to suggest that Sen. Obama may be the anti-Christ. It never ceases to amaze me how Democrats can allow conservative Republicans—a group whose only reason for being is to undermine the poor—to co-opt the love of God as a political issue. I once read a bumper sticker that said, "The Christian Right is neither Christian, nor Right." I remember thinking at the time, what a profoundly concise statement of fact--Shakespeare couldn't have said it any better. It's unbelievable what these thugs have done--they not only stole Christmas, they stole the Messiah himself. So instead of caving in to the conservative theft of Christianity, every Democrat in America should drive the truth about these demagogues home every time they opened their mouths to address the Christian community. They should use every opportunity to educate the people to the facts, and the fact is, Jesus Christ was a liberal--and according to his teachings, to be anything else, is less than Christian. Ok, I know--that sounds like a ridiculously partisan statement, and admittedly, I'm far from a Biblical scholar. In fact, I'm not even truly what most people would call a Christian--that is, unless they examined my heart. But I can read, and all the supernatural stuff notwithstanding, I am a great admirer of Jesus as a progressive, a teacher, and philosopher. So I stand by my position--Jesus Christ was a liberal, and I challenge any Biblical scholar in the world to prove me wrong. Let's take a look at the facts. The American Heritage Dictionary defines liberal as follows: Lib-ER-al adj. Abbr. Lib. 1. A. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. B. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. The only thing missing from that definition is a picture of Jesus Christ himself. Jesus was broad minded, free of bigotry, and tolerant of the ideas of others. He was also good-natured, and like any true liberal, he had compassion for the poor and an eye towards reforming the status quo. On the other hand, the Christian Right tends to base their theology on the condemnation of those with whom they disagree. Where Jesus' position was what can we do to make this a better world, the conservative position is what can we do to destroy those who refuse to love our world or leave it; and where Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", Pat Robertson says, pass me a rock. Jesus was focused on feeding the hungry and heeling the sick, where Bush, on the other hand, vetoed child healthcare in one breath, while demanding $192 billion for his war machine in the next. Christians? I don't think so. True Christians recognize that Jesus is interested in how we treat our fellow man. He could care less about whether we put "In God We Trust" on our money, or whether or not we put a nativity scene on the town square. That has nothing to do with Christianity. God doesn't need commercials--that's more about hypocrites trying to fool God, and man, into believing that they're Christians. But while they may fool man, they can't fool God, because he knows them by their deeds, or lack thereof. True Christians recognize that. They also recognize that the issue of prayer in school is also a non-issue--an issue promoted by chauvinistic personalities trying to force their will down the throats of others. After all, how can you prevent a person from praying in school? In addition, any thinking Christian knows that while they may not agree with same-sex unions, it is God, not they, who will judge whether or not gays have the right to love. True Christians recognize that all of these issues are designed to promote anger, dissension, and division, the very antithesis of Jesus' message to "Love thy neighbor." The people who promote these sort of issues are mean-spirited personalities who have become expert at hiding their bigoted proclivities within the Christian community. They pretend to be Christians so they can hide their prejudice, and penchant for demonizing others within a protective cocoon of spirituality. Claiming to be Christians allow them to say, "Oh, it's not me who hates Blacks, liberals, gays, Democrats, and everybody from Hollywood, Berkeley, and San Francisco, it's God. I can't help it if God hates everybody who don't look and think like I do." These kind of people have absolutely saturated the Christian community-- that's why the very same part of the country we refer to as the Bible Belt, just happens to also be the most racist, narrow-minded, and under-educated area in the entire United States. These are the people who refer to those who want to think for themselves as secular elitist--and if there's any doubt about my contention, just ask yourself, how was it at all possible for Christianity and rabid racism to exist in the very same environment. Then ask yourself, what group is most supportive of the murder and mayhem currently taking place in Iraq, and whether or not you think Jesus would join them in their frenzy. Thus, the Democrats should point out to the Christian community at every opportunity that there are demons among them. And liberals shouldn't be at all shy about pointing out that while the Christian Right are thumping their Bibles, they're simultaneously preaching and promoting policies that would be repulsive to Jesus Christ. Liberals also shouldn't be shy about pointing out any scandal that show these people for what they are, because the Christian community needs to recognize that these demons among them are undermining their mission, and everything that Jesus Christ stood for. They're giving all Christians a bad name. Many who might otherwise come to church are embarrassed to be seen in the company of these demagogues. In preparing this article it became immediately clear why conservatives are less than supportive of funding public education. Just a cursory glance through the Bible by any educated person--at least, any educated person who hasn't been brainwashed into to believing that he'll go to hell for thinking--will show that the Bible has but one theme, a theme that it repeats over and over again. The Ten Commandments says just about everything the Bible has to say—try to live a loving and honorable life. The demagogues take its many verses, however, and twist them out of context to make them say whatever they want them to say. But for anyone who wants the definitive word on how to be embraced by God, simply turn to Matthew 25:34--it lays it all out, plain and simple: "Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me." They then asked Jesus, When did we do all of that for you? And he replied, when you did it for the least of my brothers, you did it for me. Then he turned to the conservatives at his left hand and said: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not." The conservatives then asked, When did we refuse to feed, clothe, or visit you in the pen? He then pointed to the people on his right and said, when you failed to help the least of these, you failed to help me. Now the righteous will go into life eternal, and you will go into everlasting punishment. So I guess that just about says it all, Brother Bush. You may have been able to live in comfort after vetoing child healthcare within the shadow of Christmas, but let's see if you can boil in comfort, in the pits of Hell. Eric L. Wattree ewattree.blogspot.com   Stay on top of what's going on around you. From Hip Hop to world and national news--stay informed about those things that impact both the Black community and the entire world, as interpreted by Dr. Boyce Watkins, and some of the nation's top Black writers. Stay in touch with Your Black World  www.yourblackworld.com/.  It's our piece of the net.

Sphere: Related Content

THE REV. WRIGHT IS WRONG

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE THE REV. WRIGHT IS WRONG: IT IS GOD'S WILL THAT WE USE COMMON SENSE Most people who have any interest at all in Sen. Obama's campaign for president are scratching their heads over what could possibly be governing Rev. Wright's decision to go public at this time. When I first learned that the reverend was being interviewed by Bill Moyers, I naturally assumed that he and the Obama campaign had decided upon a strategy of allowing the American people to see who the reverend really is, in order to offset the media portrayal of him. While I could understand the rationale behind such a move, it seemed to me that it was an extremely risky endeavor, and ill advised. Then I learned that not only was Rev. Wright being interviewed by Bill Moyers, but he was also going before the National Press Club, and all on his own accord, without bringing Obama into the loop. It was only then that I realized that we had a loose cannon on our hands, and we were also facing yet another political disaster. I've learned a lot about my people during this campaign, but nothing has come into focus more clearly than the penchant for some of us to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Within an hour after Obama first announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination you could hear the crabs stirring restlessly in the barrel. Then the first claw reached out, in the person of a supposedly enlightened Black talk show host–What kind of brother are you if you think announcing your candidacy for presidency is more important than coming on my infomercial? Then the next claw , from a so-called Black intellectual–I just want to know two things- how much do you love your people, and where you getting your money. Then came the Black politicians, pundits, and self-serving businessmen--and from there it became an absolute self-hatefest. Thankfully, due to the thinly veiled dismissive remarks of our "First Black president", the people in the community began to see through the ignorance of our failed leadership, and came to rally around this impressive young brother. But unfortunately, we found that a history of envy, self-service, and egomania is a tenacious foe, and will only die after a slow, lingering, and agonizing struggle. If we'er ever going to correct this situation in the Black community, instead of trying to defend our Black icons who behave inappropriately, we must refer back to the wisdom that we learned in order to survive on the street, and simply call a hat a hat. And in this case, the hat that Rev. Wright is sportin' is one of unabashed self-service. Rev. Wright knows full well that his previous remarks have severely undermined Sen. Obama's pursuit for the Democratic nomination. He also knows that we are now at a crucial point in the nominating process. So why would he--literally, and in God's name--choose this moment to lose his mind? His answer to that question is as lame as they come. He said, "They're talking about my momma", the Black church. His response was reminiscent of Hillary Clinton's lament about her yearning need to save America, and it came off just a phony. The Black church doesn't need Rev. Wright's defense–it was doing just fine under circumstances much more dire than we find ourselves today, and beyond that, it survived for countless generations before there even was a Rev. Wright, so he's gonna have to come up with something better than that. Wright also pointed out that it doesn't matter what anyone says, whether they be pundits, the news media, or politicians, if it is God's will for Barack Obama to become the next president, he will be the next president. I'll come back to the validity of that statement in a moment, but if it is Wright's conviction that God has the ability to protect Obama, even from a mouth like his own, why does he think God needs his help to protect the Black church? While Rev. Wright is clearly a learned man, it is just as clear that he's highly selective in the Biblical passages that he chooses to adhere to. How does his behavior square with the Biblical prescription to treat others as he would like to be treated, for example? If he was in Obama's position–a hare's breath away from becoming President of the United States–I wonder if he would want some loose cannon of a preacher strutting around on stage antagonizing voters to milk his thirty minutes of fame? I don't think he'd like it at all. But the reverend tries to justify his distraction by pointing out that while Obama is a politician, he, Rev. Wright, speaks for God, and as mentioned earlier, indicates that if it's God's will for Obama to be president, nothing can stop it. But he's wrong. All it takes is one silly old self-serving preacher to, indeed, stop him in his tracks, with just one thoughtless turn of a phrase, because God helps those who help themselves–and at this moment in history, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is of absolutely no help whatsoever. I always point out to my religious friends that we can only know God's will by what he has done, and what he has done is made birds to fly, fish to swim, and man to think. Yet, in this current situation, Rev. Wright has conveniently chosen to go spiritual on us in lieu of his common sense–and that's in spite of the fact that next to life itself, common sense is the most precious gift that God has bestowed upon man. If the reverend disputes my contention, I invite him to try jumping of the building he spoke so eloquently in and see if God intervenes. God gave us common sense to handle such matters. The simple fact that God blessed man with a mind, is prima facie evidence that it is his will that we use it. That's what Obama's doing. His candidacy alone is God's answer to the prayers that lingered on the lips of a million slaves. And even as Wright struts across the stage promoting his own image, Obama is hard at work desperately trying to find an answer to the prayers of millions of our contemporaries across this land, and around the world–people who are praying to save their homes, to find a job, to put their kids through school, and others, who simply pray that their children survive a brutal and unjust war. So Rev. Wright, while your delivery is extremely witty, and your words are quite eloquent, I'd appreciate it much more if you'd refrain from preaching your sermon and start living us one. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com 

Sphere: Related Content

CLINTON SUPPORTERS BEGINNING TO JUMP SHIP

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE CLINTON SUPPORTERS BEGINNING TO JUMP SHIP– AS A SIMPLE MATTER OF CONSCIENCE Hillary Clinton has done a lot of talk about the value of experience, and her selfless dedication to America during these primaries. But it's just that--talk, and many of her supporters are beginning to see it. She's trying to be all things to all people. In order to prove her executive experience, she all but claims to have been co-president with her husband. Then to prove that she's tough enough to handle the job, she claimed she had to corkscrew into a war zone while dodging sniper fire, because it was too dangerous to send Bill. And earlier on, when she began to fear that Obama might just win the nomination, and critics said she was too hardcore, she went before a gathering of women in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, valiantly fighting back tears, and with a softly cracking voice, she said the following: "It's not easy . . . it's not easy. I couldn't do it if I didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do. This is very personal for me. I have so many ideas for this country, and I just don't want to see us fall backwards. It's about our country, it's about our kids. We do it--each one of us--because we care about our country. But some of us are right, and some of us are wrong; some of us are ready, and some of us are not. Some of us know what we'll do on day one, and some of us don't." It was a stellar, and now familiar performance (she's used the same wistful persona on several occasions since, but without the tears), and it went a long way towards helping her to win New Hampshire, and rightly so--that kind of talent shouldn't go unrewarded. In spite of the fact that she was ostensively choked with "emotion", her talking point was right on que ("Some of us know what we'll do on day one, and some of us don't"). Thus, one would think that someone as passionate about America as Hillary would fully understand and appreciated the integrity of a man like Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico. Instead of simply taking the easy way out and caving in to cronyism, the governor, one of the most experienced politicians in America today, looked back over his vast experience and came to the conclusion that he had to support Senator Barack Obama over the wife of his long-time friend and former boss. But instead of having the class to say I'm sorry I didn't earn your support, and I understand how you must have agonized over your decision, Clinton surrogate, James Carville, labeled Gov. Richardson "Judas." Now I ask you–is this world-class, presidential politics, or kids throwing sand in a nursery school? That incident alone shows why America should take Hillary's contention that she's running to protect our children, and in the best interest of the country with a box of salt. First, the statement is both highly presumptuous and condescending–what makes her think that she's the only one who can save America? And secondly, it's a lie–that's right, yet, another one. Hillary is running for one reason, and one reason only-- to quench her own unquenchable thirst for power. It was Gov. Richardson who acted in the best interest of our kids and country, and not because of who he chose to support, but because of the way he made his decision–like a statesman, as opposed to the petty, red-faced, and power-hungry politicians who are jumping up and down about it. They claim that Richardson's not a team player, but the fact is, he's the ultimate team player, they're just on the wrong team. The Clintons' angry response to Richardson's simple act of integrity says it all–they're committed to business as usual. Sure, they want change, but only a change in power--from Republican hands, to theirs. Richardson, on the other hand, has demonstrated that he heard the American people loud and clear, then acted on it in spite of what must have been tremendous personal stress. And according to an article, by Mark Leibovich in the New York Times, Clintons Sort Friends: Past and Present, Gov. Richardson isn't the only one who's beginning to see the light. Nancy Larson, a Democratic National Committee member from Minnesota, indicated that after Chelsea Clinton learned that she was switching her allegiance from Hillary to Obama, Chelsea pressed her to know why. "She was really pushing me. She kept asking me why I was doing this. She just kept asking, 'Why? Why?' " The article goes on to point out that "Mrs. Clinton has been losing potential endorsers and superdelegate backing from grass-roots activists like Mrs. Larson as well as elected officials, party luminaries and former Clinton White House aides (the most recent being former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who endorsed Mr. Obama on Friday)." And that "there is no shortage of powerful Democrats who are quick to accuse the Clintons of defining loyalty as a one-way street, with little regard for the sacrifices they have made for a couple whose own political needs seem to their critics always to come first." And therein lies the problem–if the Clinton campaign hasn't shown anything else, it has clearly demonstrated that Hillary's needs, wants, and desires come first--before friends, before party, before country--and that's an exceedingly ugly trait, even to us little people. Previously, Clinton supporters viewed Hillary's single-mindedness as a sign of focus and determination, but the mean-spirited scratching, clawing, and lying that she's done during these primaries have betrayed a serious flaw in her character–a desperate, even, pathological need for power, and at any cost. So, yes, Clinton supporters are beginning to jump ship in unprecedented numbers. Many remember the early years, so they're leaving with deep regret. But Hillary's extreme behavior has awakened their sense of responsibility, so they must leave, as a simple matter of conscience. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com Stay on top of what's going on around you. From Hip Hop to world and national news--stay informed about those things that impact both the Black community and the entire world as interpreted by Dr. Boyce Watkins, and some of the nation's top Black writers. Stay in touch with Your Black World www.yourblackworld.com/. It's your piece of the net.

Sphere: Related Content

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SUPERDELEGATES

BENEATH THE SPIN * ERIC L. WATTREE AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SUPERDELEGATES I realize that many of you feel that you owe the Clintons your loyalty, and others are waiting to ensure that you act in the Democratic Party's best interest, but when is enough enough? Even the most rabid Clinton supporters have to recognize by now that Hillary can't possibly secure the Democratic nomination without literally tearing the Democratic Party apart–and Hillary knows that better than anyone. So it must be clear to everyone by now that Hillary is no longer in this race to win. Hillary's sole purpose at this point is to stay in the race as long as she can, and sling enough mud on Barack Obama to prevent him from winning in November. Then, since at McCain's age he's not expected to remain in office but one term, Hillary will still be young enough to run in 2012. I've mentioned Hillary's strategy before, but it bears repeating, since it stands as a monument to mean-spirited selfishness. But that shouldn't surprise us, because Hillary's entire life has been centered around self-service, and what's now beginning to look like a sociopathic fixation her own ambition. Every since she entered the White House as First Lady, everything Hillary's done has been in the service of her ambition to become President of the United States. Her failed attempt to provide universal healthcare and her run for the senate was all designed to buildup her resume for the job. That explains why she's so hostile towards Barack Obama. Throughout Bush's second term Hillary has been acting, and treated, like the president-in-waiting. In fact, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if she's already decided what color she intends to change the drapes in the Oval Office. Then here comes Barack Obama, this young upstart who has the audacity to seek her office. Initially she simply tolerated him. Then as he became more popular, she became dismissive, but once it became clear that he might actually win, she panicked–first she tried to play on our emotions with tears, then she tried becoming gracious and sincere, and finally, when that didn't work, she morphed into who she really is, angry and mean-sprited (Who does he think he is–does he really think he can become president based on a speech? ). So make no mistake about it, this has become intensely personal to Hillary. At his point, she could care less about her supporters, the Democratic Party, or the American people–all she cares about is taking back what she has convinced herself that she's personally entitled to. But seeing Hillary in this mode has turned out to be a fortunate opportunity for both the super-delegates, and the American people as a whole, because it has allowed us to see the chinks in her armor while she's under pressure. It has also given us the opportunity to see the flaws in her character, and how she's viewed through the eyes of her opponents. In that regard, I never thought I'd live to see so many Republicans supporting a Clinton with such enthusiasm. Rush Limbaugh has been threatened with indictment for encouraging his conservative listeners to crossover and vote for Hillary during the Ohio primaries. That one act alone goes farther towards repudiating Hillary's repeated claims that Obama is inexperience and can't win than anything that anyone can possibly say. Obama's so-called "inexperience" notwithstanding, the Republicans are essentially saying, "Please send us Hillary." The reason for that is simple. The Republicans see a deeply flawed candidate, and they realize that Hillary's nomination represents the Republican Party's only chance of returning from the dead. They know that the conservatives' hatred of the Clintons is so pervasive that it represents their one and only chance of re-energizing their base. They also know that if Hillary does manage to get the nomination, it can only happen at the expense of an irreparable rift in the Democratic Party–a rift that may very well completely destroy the party as we know it. On the other hand, Obama is a Republican nightmare--he's captured the imagination of many young Republicans who were too young to remember the feeling of optimism during the Kennedy era, yet, are attracted to the excitement surrounding Obama. The excitement of their young, Democratic peers is new to them, and they like it. At the same time, Obama has also reconnected many older Republicans with their youth–a time when they were young, full of enthusiasm, and fully supported the optimism that engulfed the nation under John Kennedy. These older Republicans remember Camelot, and the opportunity to revisit the optimism of their youth excites their soul. Thus, the Republican leadership realizes that if Obama becomes the nominee, they don't have a chance. They know that they'll not only lose the November election, but it will usher in a new era in the body politic that will render the Republican Party dead in the water for years, and maybe even decades to come. Republican success is based on anger and dissent, and as is clearly apparent even within the Democratic Party, Hillary's very nature would feed that beast in spades. But Obama's strong suit is consensus, and bringing the country together, so the Republican Party would have to re-assess their entire approach to the political process. So it seems that the future of this nation has been dropped right in the lap of the superdelegates, but your decision should be relatively easy. If you indulge the self-serving whims of Hillary Clinton, you're surely going to destroy the Democratic Party, since the only way that you can give her the nomination is to ignore the wishes of the majority of the Democratic and Independent voters across this land–including the many young Democrats who have gotten involved in the political process for the first time in response to Senator Obama. If you do that, Democrats and many Independents will stay away from the polls in droves, resulting in Democratic officeholders all over this country being turned out of office–including many of you. So in this case, justice, common sense, and your own self-interest has converged to suggest the right thing to do-- simply declare for Obama and tell Hillary to get a grip on reality–and the sooner you do it, the better off the nation will be. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com Stay on top of what's going on around you. From Hip Hop to world and national news--stay informed about those things that impact both the Black community and the world by some of the nation's top Black writers. Stay in touch with Your Black World www.yourblackworld.com/. It's your piece of the net.

Sphere: Related Content

THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF CLINTON

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF CLINTON Hillary Clinton's ravenous ambition and sense of entitlement has clearly blinded her to reality. If she wasn't so blinded by the arrogance of believing that America owes her the presidency, she'd realize that her antics in this election is not only undermining any chance she has of becoming president, but it's also wreaking havoc on the Clinton legacy. The one thing the Clintons had going for them was America's belief that, with all their flaws, they were primarily motivated by what was in America's best interest. But that's no longer the case. Now we see the Clintons for what they are–a couple who's willing to lie, cheat and steal to promote their own greed and self-interest. That, in turn, has caused many Americans to take a second look at both, their character, and Bill's presidency through the lens of this new information, and a large number of them don't like what they see. Now, many Americans are beginning to ask themselves questions, like how can we trust Hillary to answer that call at 3 a.m. When she seems to be totally oblivious to facts that are staring her in the face–especially when those facts don't conform to what she wants to see? For example, doesn't she realize that by continuously slinging mud at Obama instead of addressing the issues that it's making her look desperate and less than concerned about the fate of the Democratic Party? And what about her judgment? What could she have possibly been thinking when she repeatedly endorsed the Republican nominee over Obama? Then there was the Bosnian matter. Didn't she realize before she told that blatant lie about the Bosnian trip that there were news cameras there to document that she was lying? And if that wasn't stupid enough, she then went on The Tonight Show and tried to joke about it, as though lying to the American people was all in fun. Now, as a direct result of that lie, a Pew research survey indicates that 29% of Democrats asked describes Hillary as phony. In addition, she's also placed herself in a position where every syllable she utters, and every scrap of paper she releases is going to be scrutinized with a fine tooth comb--and that doesn't bode well, considering her dubious past. As a matter of fact, it seems that the process has already begun. Dan Calabrese reveals in his column that former general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Zeifman, indicated that he fired the 27 year old Hillary Rodham from the House Judiciary Committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation due to her lying and unethical conduct. Zeifman said that during the Watergate investigation Hillary lied in a legal brief, them removed evidence from public access that would document her conduct. In addition, Christopher Hitchens wrote in an article for Slate Magazine that Hillary's lie about flying into Bosnia under sniper fire was just the tip of the iceberg in the Bosnian story. Hitchens points out that while Hillary arrived in Tuzla in 1996, the real story began four years earlier in 1992 when Bill Clinton promised to take action to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia. Hitchens points to Sally Bedell Smith's book, For Love of Politics, where she indicates the following: "Taking the advice of Al Gore and National Security Advisor Tony Lake, Bill agreed to a proposal to bomb Serbian military positions while helping the Muslims acquire weapons to defend themselves—the fulfillment of a pledge he had made during the 1992 campaign. But instead of pushing European leaders, he directed Secretary of State Warren Christopher merely to consult with them. When they balked at the plan, Bill quickly retreated, creating a 'perception of drift.' The key factor in Bill's policy reversal was Hillary, who was said to have 'deep misgivings' and viewed the situation as 'a Vietnam that would compromise health-care reform.' The United States took no further action in Bosnia, and the 'ethnic cleansing' by the Serbs was to continue for four more years, resulting in the deaths of more than 250,000 people." Revelations such as the one above, along with the truth about NEFTA, and the Clinton antics during this campaign is rapidly changing America's view of the Clintons-- including Bill's legacy as president. Regardless to what one's position is on the matter of universal healthcare, allowing the death of 250,000 people is much too high a price to pay to promote any legislation–and especially when that legislation ultimately went down to defeat. But at this point, one must wonder about Hillary's commitment to universal healthcare in the first place. Now that we've seen the several faces of Hillary, along with the Clinton's Machiavellian approach to politics, one is tempted to wonder if Hillary was really as committed to universal healthcare as she claimed, or was she simply building a resume for this future run for the presidency. Her commitment seems especially suspect now, since it has recently been revealed that she failed to pay the healthcare premiums for her own campaign staff. According to Politico.com , Hillary has failed to pay $292,000 in healthcare premiums for her own staff. And what makes this episode even more ironic is the fact that Hillary's failure to pay those premiums reinforces a point that Obama has repeatedly made during the campaign. Hillary claimed that Obama's plan was flawed because it didn't cover all of the people. In response, Obama said that his plan covered anyone who wanted to be insured, but he didn't make it mandatory that every adult be insured because under Hillary's plan if a person couldn't afford to pay the premium they'd be fined for missing the payment, which would create an additional financial burden on many people. Now maybe Hillary will understand Obama's point. If Hillary's campaign staff had been insured under her plan, in addition to having to pay the $292,000 in back premiums, she'd also be facing a fine. It's sad to watch the Clintons go down in flames. I would have been quite comfortable with having Bill step into history as one of our great presidents, and to see Hillary live out an illustrious political career, whatever that entailed. But in the end, it's beginning to look like it is the intent of destiny to set the record straight. What we now know about the Clinton's ugly greed for power has brought additional scrutiny into their lives, and at this point, it looks like it's going to be their undoing. While it's painful knowing that I was wrong about them, I'd much rather to be informed than to be right. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com Stay on top of what's going on around you. From Hip Hop to world and national news--stay informed about those things that impact both the Black community and the world by some of the nation's top Black writers. Stay in touch with Your Black World www.yourblackworld.com/. It's your piece of the net. Eric

Sphere: Related Content

Mamie Eisenhower Tames the rugged West

Mamie Eisenhower remains wide awake as she tames the rugged West. In spite of intense sniper fire, and fierce opposition from wild domestic inhabitants, Mamie, this bold forerunner of Hillary Clinton, proves once again that she has what it takes to hit the ground running on day one.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

AS HILLARY SAID, "WE GET TO PICK OUR FRIENDS."

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

IF WE ALLOW OUR BEST TO BE DRAGGED THROUGH THE MUD
THE AVERAGE AMERICAN DOESN’T HAVE A CHANCE

Along with the ability to inspire, a president should have the intelligence to see the big picture, the maturity to handle power, and the class to ensure that his or her own personal needs remain secondary to that of the people. This election process has given us an excellent opportunity to assess those qualities in both candidates, and while Hillary Clinton has demonstrated that she is an exceptionally intelligent woman, she’s also demonstrated that she leaves much to be desired in the area of maturity and class. If we’ve learned nothing else about Hillary during these primaries, we’ve learned that nothing is more important to her than becoming President of the United States–not the nation, not the people, and certainly not the Democratic Party. Hillary has shown that she is more than willing to throw the entire Democratic Party under the bus–along with the Senate, Congress, and the Supreme Court--if it means she’ll end up sitting in the Oval Office.

Hillary’s behavior has been so radically single-minded during these primaries that it sounds like I’m indulging in hyperbole, but the facts will bear me out. Essentially, Senator Obama has won the primaries–he’s won more states, he’s won the popular vote, and he has an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates. If Hillary won all of the remaining primaries, she’d still fall short of Obama’s lead. Hillary knows that quite well, and she also knows that the longer she slings mud at Obama, the greater the chances the Democratic Party, along with many of its elected officials, will go down in defeat. So the classy thing for her to do would be to swallow her pride and encourage her supporters to get behind Senator Obama’s candidacy with all of the enthusiasm that they’ve brought to her campaign. But instead, she’s endorsed the Republican candidate as more qualified to be president than Obama, and she continues to sling mud in the vain hope that she can hurt Obama so badly that his candidacy will lose all viability. She’s calculated that if she hurts Obama badly enough, even if the party doesn’t nominate her by default, Obama will lose the general election. That way, since there won’t be a Democratic incumbent in the race, she’ll still be young enough to run in 2012.

That’s not only a cynically self-centered agenda, but it’s exactly the kind of selfish immaturity that we currently have running the country with George Bush–and it’s also the kind of politics that we’re so desperately trying to get away from. In addition to that, her Bosnian chronicle demonstrates that she’s willing to lie to the American people without cause or provocation. Is that the kind of person we want heading the Democratic Party? And after already being embarrassed by first, her husband, then Bush, is that the kind of flawed character that we want representing America before the world?

Hillary claims that Obama lacks the experience to be president, but ask yourself, do you think if the situation was completely reversed that Obama would continue to throw mud on Hillary, or try to tear the party apart in an attempt to destroy her chances of winning the election? Absolutely not. That’s the difference between old-style, selfish immaturity, and a young man who wants to bring change to the body politic–a change that gives priority to the American people, over personal ambition.

But there’s an upside to this situation. The fact is, Hillary can’t destroy the party alone–in order for her to pull it off, she needs the backing of both, her supporters, and the super-delegates. So Democrats have a decision to make–do they genuinely want to see change, or are they going to sit back and allow Hillary to bring the Republican Party back from the dead?

There are a number of people in the Clinton camp who would love to support Obama–they’ve been touched by his passion, his enthusiasm, and his dedication to what we can become as a nation–but they remain loyal to Hillary due to past ties and favors that the Clintons did for them while Bill was in office–favors that we now know came with strings. While the loyalty of these supporters is understandable, there are times when loyalty can be taken too far, and this is one of those times. At this point Hillary is asking her supporters for more than just their support for a viable campaign for the presidency, she’s already lost that campaign. Now she’s asking them to support her attempt to not only hold the Democratic Party hostage, but to possibly destroy it, and their own careers as well, if the Democrats refuse to cater to her unreasonable demand to be its nominee. That is far too much to ask of anyone–after all, how would they face their constituencies thereafter?

Thus, at this point Hillary’s supporters who hold political office should be asking themselves whether or not they’ve exhausted any obligation they may have owed the Clintons. They should also begin to consider the obligations they have to the Democratic Party, the American people, and indeed, themselves. The should consider at what point their loyalty to the Clintons begin to have a negative impact on the people they represent. When Rep. John Lewis and Gov. Bill Richardson asked themselves that question, they came to the conclusion, that time had come.

The Democratic Party has the good fortune of having one of the most gifted, honorable, and dynamic voices in a generation willing to carry its banner. While the Clintons claim he’s inexperienced and can’t win in the general election, he’s managed to handle everything that both a senator and a former president, with a combined experience of over seventy years, can throw at him, and without even breaking a sweat. And for all intent and purposes, he’s now legitimately won the primaries–and he did it while running a campaign of dignity, respect, and with his head held high. So are we now really prepared to sit back and watch this impressive young man be dragged through the mud by a meanspirited, vindictive, relic of the past, based solely on her sense of entitlement? If we do, we don’t deserve the presidency–in fact, it will signal the time for a third party.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

JEREMIAH AND AMERICA’S BLIND SPOT

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE JEREMIAH AND AMERICA'S BLIND SPOT The American media has become absolutely fixated on Rev. Jeremiah Wright. How could he say what he did about America? Why didn't Senator Obama storm out of the church in protest? And how can Barack Obama be the man he claims to be and embrace such a man? These are all questions that might have also been asked of another man and his supporters over two thousand years ago, and today just as then, the answer is short and sweet–because the man speaks the truth. The controversy over Rev. Wright's sermon says much more about America's blind spot than it does about either Rev. Wright, or Sen. Obama. Because while the words were indeed ugly, the truth therein was as pure as virgin snow. Thus, the problem is not with Rev. Wright or Sen. Obama, the problem is with America's inability to handle the truth, and as long as that continues to be the case, America is doomed to be led by demagogues whose claim on leadership will be based on lies, and the very worst in an otherwise great nation. The fact is, Obama didn't renounce Rev. Wright or leave his church in protest because he knew that there was nowhere he could go in the Black community to find a credible ministry that wasn't preaching the very same sermon at some point in time. We must remember that the snippet of Rev. Wright's sermon that we heard played and re-played ad nauseam by the media was taken from over thirty years of sermons–and even then, it was taken out of context. Not once did I hear the media play the part of the sermon where Rev. Wright declared that he'd been taught to "love the hell out of my enemy!" And that was the thrust–the intent, if you will–of his sermon. It was not his intent to preach hatred of America, his intent was to preach the truth, and to love the hell right out the those who specialize in bringing the very worse out in the American people. So, the media didn't just take Rev. Wright's words out of context, it took the role of the Black church out of context as well. Black preachers are not just spiritual advisers, they're also therapists. For the most part, Black people don't have the resources to engage private therapists to work out the frustrations attendant to a daily barrage injustice, so Black preachers provide that service. The next time you watch the endless loops of Rev. Wright's sermon, look at the people in the background, and the young man who comes up to bow his approval. Rev. Wright is giving his congregation the opportunity to vent the frustration of injustice. White people who find themselves concerned over Rev. Wright's words should ask themselves, where do you think all of that passion and frustration would go if Rev. Wright, and Black preachers across this land, wasn't providing their people a vehicle for releasing that passion and pent-up frustration? Instead of demanding that this man be renounced, he and his Christian colleagues should be given awards as renowned public servants. And further, it is indeed ironic that this man would be called un-American. Black people have been called a lot of things over the centuries, but unpatriotic has never been among them. We must never forget that it was a Black man, Crispus Attucks, who was the very first person to die for this country. And from that moment to this, regardless to what Black people have endured at the hands of White America, we've been the very first to respond, with a willingness to lay our lives on the line against any threat to the American ideal. But it is the phrase "American ideal" that separates Rev. Wright from Bush, Cheney, and the Limbaughs of this world. When Rev. Wright said "God damn America", he was clearly speaking of American policy, not the American ideal–and since he has paid his dues as an American in full, he had every right to do so. One Rev. Jeremiah Wright is worth more to America than a boatload of armchair patriots like Bush, Cheney, and the Rush Limbaughs of the world. While these armchair patriots take pride in going around wearing American flags in their lapels, and declaring how much they love America to all who will listen, where were they when America needed them to place their lives on the line? I'll tell you where they were–George Bush used his father's influence to maneuver his way into the Texas National Guard in order to assure that other Americans would go Vietnam, and in many cases die in his place, and even then he went AWOL; Dick Cheney managed to get five (5) military deferments, indicating that "I had other priorities"; and Rush Limbaugh managed to avoid fighting for this country by claiming a boil on his ass. Now these so-called "super-patriots" are pointing their finger at Rev. Wright as un-American for speaking the truth–this man who not only answered this nation call in the Navy, but served as a United States Marine as well. There's something very wrong with that picture. Rev. Wright's sermon was designed to wake a sleeping giant, the American ideal. He was pointing out to America that we're suffering from a serious blind spot. He wanted to open America's eyes to the fact that the most unconscionable act of terrorism in the history of mankind was when the United States dropped not one, but two atomic bombs on the women and children of the Japan. In that case, we attempted to justify it by saying it saved countless American lives, but by using that argument we also argue that the lives of American combatants are more valuable than Japanese women and children–thus terrorism is justified when American lives are involved. We're embracing that very argument even now in Iraq. The American people can be blinded to that fact through the thick fog of patriotism, but the rest of the world doesn't suffer from our laundered point of view. They see our actions then, and now, for what it is--terrorism. The good Rev. Wright's sermon was right out of the Bible. John 8:32: "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." And the truth is, the only difference between Arab terrorism and American terrorism is that we've got a much more efficient delivery system. Open your eyes America. True, Al Qaeda killed three thousand Americans, but in response, we've killed over a million people who's done absolutely nothing to us. Let us think about that as we condemn Jeremiah. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com A STATEMENT FROM HILLARY'S PASTOR REGARDING THE REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. He has been a vocal critic of the racism, sexism and homophobia which still tarnish the American dream. To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize. This is a critical time in America's history as we seek to repent of our racism. No matter which candidates prevail, let us use this time to listen again to one another and not to distort one another's truth. Dean J. Snyder, Senior Minister Foundry United Methodist Church March 19, 2008 Stay on top of what's going on around you. From Hip Hop to world and national news--stay informed about those things that impact both the Black community and the world by some of the nation's top Black writers. Stay in touch with Your Black World www.yourblackworld.com/. It's your piece of the net. Eric

Sphere: Related Content

The Problem With Hillary

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE THE PROBLEM WITH HILLARY The problem with Hillary is that she seems to think she's smarter than the rest of us. The next time you hear her speaking at a political rally, listen to her closely, then ask yourself, does she sound like a person who's speaking to political allies, or more like a schoolmarm talking down to children and instructing them in the inherent value of being obedient and listening to the wisdom of their elders. She seems to have absolutely no respect for the intelligence of the American people. She comes off as though she views the American voter as an unfortunate nuisance to be manipulated to reach her goal. For example, when she was quoted as saying, "He's [John McCain's] never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002." That statement was clearly calculated to leave the impression in the voters' feeble little minds that while John McCain has never been president, she has. And to hear the dismissive tone that she takes towards Barack Obama, one would never know that while Obama was both the president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor of Constitutional law, she failed the bar exam. The one good thing about this extended primary season, however, is that it gives us the opportunity to see past the candidates' political veneer--we're afforded the opportunity to see how the candidates actually handle crisis and frustration. It also allows us to see their decision making capabilities, and it gives us a snapshot of the kind of personal character that they'll bring to the White House--and recent history demonstrates just how important it is that we avail ourselves of that opportunity. If we'd done so with Bush we could have saved close to a million lives, billions of dollars, and an immeasurable amount of heartache. Thus, anyone who is truly curious about what a Hillary Clinton presidency would bring--and that should include all of us--should tune out all of the promises, all of the "day one" nonsense, and simply open their eyes, because Hillary is on display as we speak. We've already seen one example of Hillary's character--or, lack thereof--in her willingness to endorse the Republican candidate over her fellow Democrat. Now we're getting another look with her recent statement that by not allowing a second vote, or finding a way to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates we're being "un-American." I have one question in that regard--if not seating the delegates is indeed un-American, wasn't it just as un-American when she agreed to it before she needed them to try to catch Obama? It seems that her desperate need to promote her agenda is rendering her oblivious to her raging hypocrisy. If the foregoing isn't sufficient to raise a red flag about Hillary, we're being given yet another opportunity to observe her character as it applies to her feminist credentials. Hillary has represented herself as a strong and independent woman throughout her entire career. Much of her support comes from feminists who think they're supporting one of their own. Yet, now, just as she turned on the Democrats to accommodate her ambition, she seems also willing to turn her back on her feminine independence--the very foundation of the feminist creed--to embrace her husband's resume as her own. She's actually trying to convince America that she served as co-president with her husband during what she would have us believe was a Billary administration. If her claim was true, there'd be no problem, but she wants us to simply take her at her word, without any evidence to substantiate her contention. She claims to be an expert in foreign affairs, for example. Ok, then she should be prepared to tell us what foreign initiatives she's fostered? What foreign leaders has she been in negotiations with, and what was the outcome? If I know Hillary--and I'm beginning to know her better every day--if she had any evidence whatsoever of foreign affairs experience, or anything else to show she was more qualified than Obama, it would have long since been brought to the forward. So we must assume that her honesty is suspect. In addition, since she's being so slow to reveal her tax return, she's probably being less than candid about the Clinton family's financial dealings as well. . Now let us turn to competence. I would love to grant that Hillary is at least as competent as George Bush, but the only evidence that we have to measure that is the way she's run her campaign--and in that regard, she seems to be making some the very same mistakes that Bush made in Iraq. Just like Bush in his Iraqi campaign, Hillary assumed that this primary season was going to be a walk in the park. She thought she'd have the nomination rapped up by Super Tuesday, so again, just like Bush, she had no plan B. As a result, in spite of the fact that she raised more money than any other presidential candidate in history, other than Barack Obama, she ended up with budgetary problems that led to her having to loan her campaign money out of her own pocket. And beyond that, she's also shown us that she tends to get flustered under fire. When Obama began to take over the lead, she didn't know whether to cry, get angry, embrace her opponent ("I'm so honored to be here with Barack Obama"), or go on the attack ("Shame on you, Barack Obama "), so she ended up doing all three, making herself look ridiculously indecisive. She's also demonstrated that her pledged commitments tend to be rather shallow. While she claimed a commitment to moving away from old-style politics, when she came under pressure her first instinct was to reverted right back to the old slash and burn tactics that she learned from Carl Rove and the Republicans. So while Hillary is telling us that she has what it takes to be president on day one, what we see is a Democratic candidate who claims to want to protect the American people from having to live through another Republican administration, yet now that she's hopelessly behind in the delegate count, she lacks the integrity to stand by an agreement made by all of the candidates prior to the primaries. We also see a candidate that is so desperate to protect the American people from the Republican Party that she's slinging mud all over the Democratic effort, and also endorsed the Republican nominee over her Democratic opponent. In addition, we see a candidate who has built her entire career on the proposition that she's a strong, independent woman, yet now, seems all too willing to throw the principles that's guided her throughout her life out the window to use her husband's resume to reach her goals. And finally, we see a candidate who claims she's uniquely prepared to be president, yet used such poor judgement, and mis-managed her finances so badly, that it caused a budgetary crisis within her campaign. The American people need to ask themselves three questions: First, in light of what we've already gone through with George Bush, is this the kind of character that we can depend on to repair our country? Secondly, since their only criticism of Obama is the claim that he's young and inexperienced, how is it that he's handling both Bill and Hillary with such ease? And finally, why is it that it's the two "seasoned politicians" who's finding it necessary to play dirty politics? America needs to give these questions some thought. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com         Eric Stay on top of what's going on around you. From Hip Hop to world and national news--stay informed about those things that impact both the Black community and the world, by some of the nation's top Black writers. Stay in touch with Your Black World www.yourblackworld.com/. It's your piece of the net.

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary Colludes With Conservatives Against Obama

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

HILLARY HOLDS DEMOCRATS HOSTAGE

 

Blank statement: Hillary Clinton does not deserve the Democratic Nomination for president–in fact, based on what these primaries have revealed of her character, she doesn’t even deserve her seat in the senate.

While Hillary has long since switched to the Democrat Party, recent weeks have clearly demonstrated that her Republican inclination towards cutthroat politics, shallow character and deceit remains firmly in tact. Compelling evidence of that is the CBS News report indicating that Hillary said, both she and Senator John McCain offer the experience to respond to a crisis, while Barack Obama only offers rhetoric. Specifically, the report quoted her as saying, “He’s [John McCain’s] never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”

That is the most mean-spirited and irresponsible remark that one Democrat can make about another prior to a national election. With that statement Hillary Clinton has essentially–no, in fact-- endorsed Republican, John McCain over Barack Obama if she fails to get the Democratic nomination.

That statement, along with her subsequent behavior clearly demonstrates that Hillary Clinton has embarked upon a scorched Earth campaign against both Barack Obama and the Democratic Party as a whole, and it is also now clear that her every move is designed to hold the very viability of the Democratic Party hostage against nominating anyone but herself.

Further evidence of that is in spite of her claim during the last debate that she is “so honored to be here with Senator Obama” and that she represents change, throughout the run up to the Texas/Ohio primaries she has engaged in the Karl Rovian politics of mudslinging (“to see what will stick”), the politics of fear, and an attempt to ridicule Senator Obama’s strengths, even though she certainly realizes that if Obama is the nominee her attacks will make it more difficult for him to be elected in November. In fact, that is her plan–to sling so much mud on Obama that he won’t be able to mount a viable campaign against the Republican nominee.

In my article, Will the Real Hillary Please Stand Up?, I pointed out that “Even Bill Clinton has acknowledged that if Hillary doesn’t get a win in Texas, she won’t get the presidential nomination. So in the next two weeks her character, and the kind of experience she brings to the table will be on display. If she’s truly committed to change, and what’s in the best interest of the United States, we’ll see a lady engaged in a valiant, yet, clean fight for the nomination. But if the “experience” she so often speaks of is of the old-style, me-first, America-be-damned kind of politics of the past, we’re going to see a lot of lying, desperate mudslinging, and win-at-any-cost kind of tactics.”

I also pointed out in that same article that “Hillary is right in one respect, however–experience can be impressive, as we saw in the Texas debate–and she certainly has it. But Hillary has the wrong kind of experience–she’s experienced in the old ways of voter manipulation. During the debate we saw a chameleon at work–first we saw the cordial Hillary, but she felt she needed to set herself apart; then she became presidential Hillary, but Obama easily matched her sober, no nonsense veneer; then she went into attack dog Hillary, only to quickly change tactics after being booed; towards the end, she finally settled on Saint Hillary, to confer love upon her opponent. It took her the entire debate, but being the “experienced” politician that she is, she finally stumbled on just the right tone of manipulation. I have a feeling we’re going to see a lot more of that in the future, so I just wanted to give you a playbook so you can keep up with which Hillary is on display.”

No, I’m not clairvoyant, it’s just that Hillary is so self-serving that she’s predictable. You see, Hillary is so far behind Obama in the number of delegates necessary to secure the nomination that she’d have to win all of the remaining primaries by over 20 points just to catch up. In short, she can no longer win the nomination–the only way she can get it is to steal it. Thus, she’s calculated that the only way she can become the nominee is through hook, crook, and deceit. So she’s calculated that she must threaten to destroy the Democratic Party’s chances of winning the November election in order to secure her community property rights–the office of the presidency. That’s right, she sees it as her entitlement.

So, even though all of the democratic candidates agreed beforehand not to campaign, or seat, the delegates in Florida and Michigan due to the states’ violation of a prohibition against holding their primaries before February 5, now Hillary is demanding that the 366 delegates be seated, and with good reason. In spite of the fact that all of the democratic candidates, including Hillary, agreed that those delegates wouldn’t be counted, when all of the other candidates took their names off the ballot, Hillary allow her name to remain on, and since she was the only Democratic name on the ballot, technically, she won the primary. Now that she’s hopelessly behind Obama in delegates, she wants to change the rules of the game and count those delegates.

A fight over this issue would tear the Democratic Party apart and allow a republican victory in November. Hillary knows that, and she also knows that Obama is the people’s choice for the Democratic nomination, but instead of taking the high road and simply bowing out gracefully, she’s holding the Democratic Party hostage as she slings mud at Obama, so that later she can convince the superdelegates (the party bigwigs) that Obama is so muddied that he wouldn’t be a viable candidate–never mind the fact she’s the one who’s throwing the mud.

So the real Hillary has finally stood up, and what do we find–vindictiveness, deceit, and self-service. Some would call that hardball politics. I call it a flaw in her character, that should preclude her from the Democratic nomination.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

HILLARY CLINTON DOESN'T DESERVE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION

BENEATH THE SPIN * ERIC L. WATTREE HILLARY CLINTON DOESN'T DESERVE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION Blank statement: Hillary Clinton does not deserve the Democratic Nomination for president–in fact, based on what these primaries have revealed of her character, she doesn't even deserve her seat in the senate. * While Hillary has long since switched to the Democrat Party, recent weeks have clearly demonstrated that her Republican inclination towards cutthroat politics, shallow character and deceit remains firmly in tact. Compelling evidence of that is the CBS News report indicating that Hillary said, both she and Senator John McCain offer the experience to respond to a crisis, while Barack Obama only offers rhetoric. Specifically, he report quoted her as saying, "He's [John McCain's] never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002." That is the most mean-spirited and irresponsible remark that one Democrat can make about another prior to a national election. With that statement she has essentially–no, in fact-- endorsed Republican, John McCain over Barack Obama if she fails to get the Democratic nomination. That statement, along with her subsequent behavior clearly demonstrates that Hillary Clinton has embarked upon a scorched Earth campaign against both Barack Obama and the Democratic Party as a whole, and it is also now clear that her every move is designed to hold the very viability of the Democratic Party hostage against nominating anyone but herself. Further evidence of that is in spite of her claim during the last debate that she is "so honored to be here with Senator Obama" and that she represents change, throughout the run up to the Texas/Ohio primaries she has engaged in the Karl Rovian politics of mudslinging ("to see what will stick"), the politics of fear, and an attempt to ridicule Senator Obama's strengths, even though she certainly realizes that if Obama is the nominee her attacks will make it more difficult for him to be elected in November. In fact, that is her plan–to sling so much mud on Obama that he won't be able to mount a viable campaign against the Republican nominee. In my article, Will the Reall Hillary Please Stand Up?, I pointed out that "Even Bill Clinton has acknowledged that if Hillary doesn't get a win in Texas, she won't get the presidential nomination. So in the next two weeks her character, and the kind of experience she brings to the table will be on display. If she's truly committed to change, and what's in the best interest of the United States, we'll see a lady engaged in a valiant, yet, clean fight for the nomination. But if the "experience" she so often speaks of is of the old-style, me-first, America-be-damned kind of politics of the past, we're going to see a lot of lying, desperate mudslinging, and win-at-any-cost kind of tactics." I also pointed out in that same article that "Hillary is right in one respect, however–experience can be impressive, as we saw in the Texas debate–and she certainly has it. But Hillary has the wrong kind of experience–she's experienced in the old ways of voter manipulation. During the debate we saw a chameleon at work–first we saw the cordial Hillary, but she felt she needed to set herself apart; then she became presidential Hillary, but Obama easily matched her sober, no nonsense veneer; then she went into attack dog Hillary, only to quickly change tactics after being booed; towards the end, she finally settled on Saint Hillary, to confer love upon her opponent. It took her the entire debate, but being the "experienced" politician that she is, she finally stumbled on just the right tone of manipulation. I have a feeling we're going to see a lot more of that in the future, so I just wanted to give you a playbook so you can keep up with which Hillary is on display." No, I'm not clairvoyant, it's just that Hillary is so self-serving that she's predictable. You see, Hillary is so far behind Obama in the number of delegates necessary to secure the nomination that she'd have to win all of the remaining primaries by over 20 points just to catch up. In short, she can no longer win the nomination--the only way she can get it is to steal it. Thus, she's calculated that the only way she can become the nominee is through hook, crook, and deceit. So she's calculated that she must threaten to destroy the Democratic Party's chances of winning the November election in order to secure her community property rights--the office of the presidency. That's right, she sees it as her entitlement. So, even though all of the democratic candidates agreed beforehand not to campaign, or seat, the delegates in Florida and Michigan due to the states' violation of a prohibition against holding their primaries before February 5, now Hillary is demanding that the 366 delegates be seated, and with good reason. In spite of the fact that all of the democratic candidates, including Hillary, agreed that those delegates wouldn't be counted, when all of the other candidates took their names off the ballot, Hillary allow her name to remain on, and since she was the only Democratic name on the ballot, technically, she won the primary. Now that she's hopelessly behind Obama in delegates, she wants to change the rules of the game and count those delegates. A fight over this issue would tear the Democratic Party apart and allow a republican victory in November. Hillary knows that, and she also knows that Obama is the people's choice for the Democratic nomination, but instead of taking the high road and simply bowing out gracefully, she's holding the Democratic Party hostage as she slings mud at Obama, so that later she can convince the superdelegates (the party bigwigs) that Obama is so muddied that he wouldn't be a viable candidate--never mind the fact she's the one who's throwing the mud. So the real Hillary has finally stood up, and what do we find–vindictiveness, deceit, and self-service. Some would call that hardball politics. I call it a flaw in her character, that should preclude her from the Democratic nomination. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content