The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    oldenGoldenDecoy's picture

    The Heavy Hit Pieces On The Clintons Begin To Bubble To The Surface

    By oldenGoldenDecoy on Thu, 02/11/2016 - 1:47am |

     

    It's going to get real nasty . . .

    Salon

    The Clintons’ sordid race game: No one will say it, but the Clintons’ rise was premised on repudiating black voters

    Here's what Bill and Hillary mean to me: Sister Souljah, welfare reform, Ricky Ray Rector and the crime bill.

     

     

    It may be a generational thing—I was born in 1967—but this is what Hillary and Bill Clinton will always mean to me: Sister Souljah, Ricky Ray Rector, welfare reform, and the crime bill. And beyond—really, behind—all that, the desperate desire to win over white voters by declaring to the American electorate: We are not the Party of Jesse Jackson, we are not the Rainbow Coalition.

    Many of the liberal journalists who are supporting Hillary Clinton’s candidacy are too young to remember what the Clintons did to American politics and the Democratic Party in the 1990s. But even journalists who are old enough seem to have forgotten just how much the Clintons’ national ascendancy was premised on the repudiation of black voters and black interests. This was a move that was both inspired and applauded by a small but influential group of Beltway journalists and party strategists, who believed making the Democrats a white middle-class party was the only path back to the White House after wandering for 12 years in the Republican wilderness. continues-->

     

    OUCH! Make this Double OUCH!

    ~OGD~

    Comments

    Might as well repeat, since people seem to have forgotten what life was like in 1992. As Clinton notes now, some of the solutions like 3 strikes were unacceptable, but it was a situation where something had to be done. In the middle of Rodney King riots and "Cop Killer", poor Sister Souljah was taken to task for saying “if black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?” and she's still got a saddie  on 25 years later - poor dear, not everyone makes use of their "teaching moment", but at least the number of blacks killing blacks went way down, though we largely left behind efforts to remove structural racism after 2001.

    ------------------------------------

    - in this American Prospect piece, they note:

    Fortunately, we were too pessimistic [see “Liberal Lessons From Welfare Reform,” July 2002]. The number of families receiving welfare fell from almost 4.5 million in 1996 to 2 million in June 2003. But poverty among single mothers fell from 42 percent in 1996 to 33 percent in 2000. Declines in the welfare rolls left states with more cash to subsidize child care and expand Medicaid coverage. Unemployment rose from 4 percent in 2000 to 6 percent in 2003, but even then the poverty rate among single mothers only rose from 33 percent to 36 percent. In 1994, when unemployment was also 6 percent, poverty among single mothers had been 44 percent.

    The spread of single motherhood has also slowed dramatically. Between 1980 and 1995, the percentage of families with children headed by a married couple fell by almost 0.5 percentage points a year. The hourly wages of poorly paid men rose faster than inflation between 1995 and 2003. 

    It's rather infantile to mention the draconian cures for these to crises without ever noting the crises themselves. Black leaders supported the Clinton anti-crime bill - Bernie Sanders voted for it. And Clinton went out on a limb to try to fix 2 tough problems, and stands first in line for criticism. Certainly not out of self-gain, nor racism (his economic measures gave blacks a better position at the table in terms of home ownership, jobs including access to middle class jobs, and heightened presence at all levels of government).

    So tell me what he should have done.

     


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 02/11/2016 - 7:51am

    Yes Ducky, It is going to get nasty.  I have to admit that Salon piece pointed out some truths. 


    by trkingmomoe on Thu, 02/11/2016 - 2:59am

    Please explain. Jesse Jackson said at the time (Jan 2008) he saw nothing wrong with Clinton's remarks, and Clinton recently spoke at his mother's funeral, so I don't think there's any anger between the two.

    Second, Kevin Drum at MotherJones addresses the supposed racism of the crime bill:

    There are two big problems here. First, the 1994 crime bill was supported by most black leaders at the time.1 It was addressing a real problem, and no one at the time knew that violent crime was already starting a historic two-decade drop. Despite that, both Bill and Hillary Clinton now acknowledge that the crime bill was flawed, especially the carceral aspects. I don't imagine this is an argument that's ever going to be resolved, but for all the bill's faults, I think it's (a) unfair to use hindsight and hyperbole ("most immoral in American history") to vilify the actions of people 20 years ago who had legitimate reasons to think they were in the middle of a huge social problem, and (b) even more unfair to suggest the bill was central to the problem of mass incarceration. The vast majority of the carceral state had been put in place long before.

    Second, suggesting that Hillary Clinton aided the passage of the 1994 crime bill via a speech she gave in 1996 speaks for itself. Hate Clinton all you want, but she hasn't invented time travel.

    1And, as several people have reminded me, by congressman Bernie Sanders.

    And the Salon article ignores the reality of Jackson and Clinton in 1992 and before helping each other even while competing (Jackson at first wanted Jerry Brown, but campaigned hard for Clinton the same year; Clinton had been working the black community long before it became fashionable with other candidates). Here and here. Yes, Clinton used Sister Souljah's 2 racist comments (week to kill white people, & "if there are good whites, where are they?") especially timely at the Rainbow Coalition, but Jackson understood politics well enough - he'd grabbed a lot of airplay through chutzpah himself - and Clinton ended up helping him much more than that soundbite hurt, from black issues to using him as special diplomatic envoy.

    [Al Sharpton may still have lingering grievances, but Al's no Jesse Jackson either]

    The way folks be spinning the past is gruesome. Guess that's why it plays to Millennials - they weren't there and aren't likely to fact check. Gruesome.

     


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 02/11/2016 - 6:21am

    Hi Ducky!

    Going back 25 years, I ask:

    WHAT WAS THE ALTERNATIVE?

    Well that thought is week-kneed of course.

    Newt was there, Mornin Joke was there, Kasich was there, the SC Senator was there, hell, the Chief Justice was there with Sargent stripes. hahahahahhah

    I have no idea whatsoever why 'the Blacks' love the Clintons.

    I never understood it.

    BUT WHAT WAS THE ALTERNATIVE?

    I have a guess though.

    The Clintons knew how to finance elections.

    And i assume that the Clintons helped finance Black elections?

    That is all I got!


    by Richard Day on Thu, 02/11/2016 - 12:10pm

    The Clintons, and Obama, are members of the electable wing of the democratic party. The unelectable wing is understandably bitter because they've been out of power since they were included in FDR's coalition . Along with every one  from Fr, Coughlin, yes in 32, and the "solid (i.e. white) south" to Rexford Tugwell. 

    The nearest that wing has come to winning an election since was when it elected W in 2000 by foolishly supporting Nader.

    Not that they are bad people (well some of them are but that's true of some members of some wings of  all parties) just innumerate. Elections aren't awarded to the nicest candidates or the ones with the most lofty aspirations.But to whoever  get's 50.000001% of the vote (except when otherwise ruled  by the Supreme Court). 

    I detested Bill's Welfare policy and Obama's Trade one. Sadly, the country didn't agree with me But never for a milli-second did I consider  that the appropriate response might be to support their various Republican opponents who supported not only  identical policies on those issues but also a witches' cauldron of  loathsome  positions  on every other one..  

    Unfortunately the unelectable wing  along with being innumerate includes a hypersensitive fringe whose members  take it as a personal affront when a Democrat in office does anything  with which they- perhaps quite properly-disagree. And respond  by not only by at least covertly rooting for the usually unspeakable Republican( I understand .I've done that myself) but far far worse by voting for them.. Something  I'm proud to say I've never done.

    The rational strategy is to vote and support the candidate whose view are least offensive  and has a chance to actually be elected.Then criticize them afterwards to your heart's content.

    Somehow I'm reminded of the late ,great Thurman Munson. One year the Yanks were about 4 games ahead with six to play. Then lost a couple of them but clinched in the penultimate game.

    Reporter

     Some people say you  backed into the pennant. 

    Munson

      They're saying that from second place


    by Flavius on Thu, 02/11/2016 - 3:48pm

    If Sanders was running in FDR's time he wouldn't have been a part of FDR's coalition. He'd be railing against a Social Security law that only covers half of America's workers and doesn't tax all the income of the rich. He'd be  advocating that we throw it out and start all over with a true universal old age pension program. And he'd blame the less than progressive policy on FDR's wealth.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 02/11/2016 - 4:18pm

    A lot of supposition in that comment.

     


    by LisB on Thu, 02/11/2016 - 6:43pm

     

    Some fine comments here . . .

     

    Thanks for all the well thought out responses.

    The point of my post comes down to how folks perceive the spin and how that will effect who they support.

    All the graphs and statistics and long winded explanations are much appreciated yet have a hard time cutting through a first impression from the spin.

    As the well worn cliché goes...

    'A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.'

    ~OGD~


    by oldenGoldenDecoy on Thu, 02/11/2016 - 4:48pm

    Yep, pissin in the proverbial river.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 02/11/2016 - 5:22pm

    It might not hurt if we all try an experiment, right now, which is this:  Forget about the Clintons' past.  Forget about Bernie's past.

    Try to see the candidates as they are today, just as they are today and nothing else.

    Hillary is running alone, as herself.  So forget Bill's record.  It's done, it's not part of the consideration.  Neither is the Iraq vote, etc.

    Let's just try to follow this year's primary without the baggage and past history, on either side.  Can we try that for a week?

    It might be interesting, this experiment.  We might learn new ways to look at the candidates. 

    To a great number of Americans, that's what's happening already. 

    Peace,

    Lis

     


    by LisB on Thu, 02/11/2016 - 6:48pm