Hillary Clinton For Sec. of State? Keep Your Enemies Closer?

Tell me it's not true. No Hillary Rodham Clinton has not emerged as a top contender to be Secretary of State. I know it is said, keep your friends close but your enemies closer, but why keep a color aroused bigot so close? but here is the challenge folks, if chosen by Barack, won't Hillary just gain international experience for two or three years, create on diversion, disagree with Obama on a policy issue, resign as Secretary of State, and run against him in 2012? The PUMA group would love it. One also has to wonder why Barack obama would nominate Clinton, who voted to authorize the war in Iraq? Would she be able to send the message of change throughout America and around the world? I guess some have forgotten the racial tensions and disgraceful bigoted campaigning caused by Hillary. I'm reminded of Doug Thompson and his blog post on the blog, Capitol Hill Blue, in April of this year, when he wrote, "Hillary Clinton won Pennsylvania because she pandered to the overt racism that exists among blue collar whites as well as the latent racism in too many others. She won because the bulk of her appeal comes from the less-educated, the less-tolerant and the less-intelligent among us. If you're a stupid, illiterate, gun-totin' white hick you probably voted for Hillary. And so did your ignorant, baby-popping, big-haired wife as well as that bleached-blond bar maid that you're seeing on the side." More HERE Get this folks, as reported by the LA Times, she flew into Chicago to meet privately with President-elect Barack Obama, former advisors to the senator from New York said. More HERE I wonder if Hillary was coming clean with Barack obama about her lies during the primaries about her coming under sniper fire in Bosnia? If Obama is going to select her, he probably needs to watch the television footage showing otherwise. The fact of the matter is Hillary Clinton has no foreign policy experience. She traveled with her husband, shaking hands and smiling. Lisa Lerer at Politico.com reports many Women's groups are worried with the early indications that men might dominate the hierarchy of Obama administration. There is a growing chorus, as reported by Politico, who are pushing for Hillary Rodham Clinton for Secretary of State post. “There’s definitely been a reaction to the few groups that have been named so far,” said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women. “I agree with those who are concerned that it would have been nice to see more women.” Politico also notes that women’s rights advocates acknowledge it’s still early in the transition process, but they say early staff picks and the lists of rumored Cabinet nominees send the wrong signal. “It’s appropriate that Obama’s vetting Clinton, but she’s one women,” said Amy Siskind, co-founder of The New Agenda, a nonpartisan women's rights group founded by former Clinton supporters. “We want to see parity in the representation of women in the Cabinet.” AAPP: Speaking of growing Chorus line, get this folks, after Hillary and Bill Clinton's massive color aroused campaigning, now Francis L. Holland, who was a former early supporter of Hillary Clinton, turned Barack Obama supporter, is now supporting Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State. Holland, who first wrote that he agreed with Latino leaders that Bill Richardson would make an "excellent pick," now says, Sen. Clinton would make a "good" leader in that position. Hmmm... Read More HERE

Was it Bill or Hillary?

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeBill is slick and I mean that as a compliment. He has to be one of the most effective politicians of the 20th century. Even the folks who hate him the most always admit that Bill has uncanny political skills. Bill could take any bad news and turn it into a golden ray of sunshine that you bought into and placed on your mantle - right next to the grandkids. But we often wondered if it was Bill who was the political mastermind or Hillary? Was it really Hillary who was the one moving the Clinton Machine forward, over seemingly insurmountable obstacles? While sitting around the dinner table during the holidays - over the years I have heard it explained that Bill and Hillary are the same. I used to agree with this idea, but no longer. Bill is more akin to Obama in his ability to communicate than Hillary ever will. Bill could take any microphone, at any rally where it was raining, snowing or bitter cold and somehow cheer people up - give them a glimpse to a more perfect future. Hillary not so much. As much as she tries, as much effort as she puts into campaign, I have never had her inspire me to do anything except drop my support for her. Her campaign's tumbledown started almost a year ago in Selma and has failed to move people ever since. Yes, she has her core supporters, but there is a movement afoot and she is not at the middle of it. Obama is. Tomorrow will tell the tale. Texas and Ohio will deliver their results. We will need to wait and see how it all washes out.

Legacy Worries

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlarge The Clintons, if anything, are complicated. Very complicated - sometimes seeming compassionate and sometimes appearing aloof and disconnected. I do think however the Clintons do care about the safety and well-being of America. Regardless of all the bullshit and punditry, they are advocates of America. I am not one of those who keep chanting "9-11 changed everything." It didn't change everything, George W. Bush changed everything. 9-11 could have been prevented but in Bush's fever to erase all things Clinton from the White House, he sat on all the Al Qaeda intel and actions Clinton/Gore put into place. Bush changed everything. Sadly, I think the Clintons have not. I rewatched the documentary War Room this past week and I see the same playbook being used today on the campaign trail. What worked in the 80's in Arkansas and in New Hampshire in 1992 is now outdated and shoeworn. We uppity progressives and liberals took up citizen journalism in the tradition of Thomas Paine. Only now, instead of pamphlets, we have Wordpress and Scoop, diaries, Google, social networking, YouTube and Adobe Software. We can track down damn near every lead, every fact, every nuance and collectively pound out a million words within an hour on any hot topic. Howard Dean was the first politician to get a clue. He knew the power of people-powered politics, blogs and citizen journalists while Jame Carville was still working the old media Crossfire gig. One would change the world and the other would die. I think that is the root of Hillary Clinton's problem, it is her inability to embrace change. I am not speaking of the overused campaign meme of a change in government, but change in terms with what has happened to the Democratic party. Democrats and progressives in general have turned their back on the DLC. When Carville demanded Howard Dean's resignation after Dean's 50 state strategy paid off in spades is a another sign of being shoeworn. Those days have passed. Obama is barely 18 months older than I am - I blog, use social network tools and am a slave to Adobe. His and mine, was the first generation to grow up with software in the home - Apple, Atari and Commodore's were everywhere. I am not saying he was geeked out with an Apple ][ in his basement, I am saying he is more aware of what those tools can do to democracy. My Mom is near Hillary's age and she has problems with mastering AOL. She is a user, not a groker. Obama groks it, he is AJAX. Bill and Hillary are legacy apps.

The Big Dog Has Rabies

The topic below was originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal, as well as the Wild Wild Left, the Independent Bloggers Alliance, the Peace Tree and Worldwide Sawdust. It took me awhile to warm up to Bill Clinton in 1992. During the primaries that year I was a Paul Tsongas supporter. Ironically, I didn’t agree with Tsongas on fiscal/economic policy but sensed he was an intelligent and decent man with an authentic core. Compared to Bill Clinton, Tsongas seemed to be a beacon of rectitude. Bill Clinton, remember had executed a retarded inmate on death row to enhance his credentials as a tough on crime “New Democrat” presidential candidate. So while I didn’t agree with Tsongas’s position on the capital gains tax cut I couldn’t ever imagine him gratuitously executing anyone. Yet Clinton also stood stall in front of a factory in New Hampshire during tough economic times and admitted no president could magically restore the jobs they had lost. I thought of that when Mitt Romney pandered to economically distressed voters in Michigan recently. Instead, Clinton became the first American politician to effectively articulate an economic transition strategy for a high-tech inter-connected world. When the right-wing conspiracy and tabloid media went after him, Bill Clinton relentlessly promoted his “Putting People First” agenda. While George Herbert Walker Bush and Ross Perot tossed rhetorical grenades at each other, Bill Clinton talked about investing in human capital. And Clinton was tough. The still fresh traumatic memory of the Mike Dukakis ’88 campaign was a toxic poison ravaging my guts. I had canvassed for Dukakis while attending college. One curmudgeon accused me of campaigning for someone who sympathized with rapists and communists. The evil slander machine of James Baker, Lee Atwater and Roger Ailes didn’t just savage Dukakis personally. You see, they also successfully demonized liberals like me as unpatriotic, indecent people to be ridiculed as unworthy participants of the American mosaic. Dukakis, was a good man. Sadly though, he didn’t just fail to stand up for himself. He didn’t stand up for people like me who believed in economic and social justice, human rights and a cleaner planet. Speaking of a cleaner planet, how the hell did the Bush Crime Family that earned a fortune through oil ever get away with portraying Dukakis as a polluter? To this day that blows my mind. None of that stuff worked on Bill Clinton. He could take a punch and throw some elbows in return. At the time I found the Clinton “War Room” refreshing. At last Democrats were kicking back. Today, I detest James Carville but at the time I considered him and George Stephanopolous heroes. Bill Clinton was winning me over with his toughness, resiliency and yes I believed there was something to the empathy. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton impressed me as a smart, tough, advocate for the progressive cause. The “two for one” pitch made Bill Clinton more appealing to me. Once Clinton selected Al Gore as his running in 1992, I believed the stars were aligned for a season of hope. I was twenty-three, idealistic yet also cynically hardened by twelve Reagan-Bush years of division, wedge issues, welfare-Cadillac queens, racism, social intolerance, xenophobia, homophobia, flag burning/pledge of allegiance propaganda and Christian fundamentalist ascendancy. I wanted to feel inspired by a movement of national unity around a new progressive paradigm. That year I wrote a letter to college friends living out west (remember when we wrote actual letters?) that Clinton’s success “depended on building bridges all Americans can walk upon. Republicans want to blow a few bridges up and convince the white middle class the blacks did it.” After the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden I bought a Fleetwood-Mac greatest hits tape and played “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow” at least once a day. I wanted to believe so badly. Clinton effectively conveyed my sentiments in his 1993 inaugural when he spoke about “forcing the spring.” I wanted to believe the country was ready. We all know what happened from there. Clinton scandals combined with a vicious right-wing counterattack resulted in an era of triangulation and the ascendancy of predatory reactionaries. Some things were accomplished: expansion of the earned income tax credit for the working poor, sound monetary policy which gave a boost to the bond market and kicked the economy, two decent Supreme Court justices, peace in Ireland and a decade of relative peace and prosperity to name but a few. We could’ve done a lot worse and if the 2000 election wasn't stolen from Al Gore I'm convinced 9/11 would never have happened. Sadly, the “Big Dog” as he’s been affectionately known in the progressive blogosphere has rabies now. As anyone who has read my blog writing knows (all five of you!), I have expressed misgivings about Barack Obama. My preferred candidate is John Edwards. But I sure as hell give Obama credit for trying to stitch a progressive diverse movement together across ethnic, gender and age demographics. It’s not so easy communicating the same message across the divide of race and class. Bobby Kennedy was on the cusp of doing just that when he was gunned down in 1968. Could it be that a moment of possibility has arrived again? Bill Clinton doesn’t want you to believe it. He shamefully exploited racial divisions to deny the politics of hope for his own self-aggrandizement and hunger for restoration with his wife as proxy. Any residual affection I ever had for him is gone. When a dog contracts rabies, even if it’s a beloved family dog, the family has no choice but to put that dog down for the good of the community. My fellow Democrats, it’s up to us to put the Big Dog down.

Barak Obama vs Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton

Why is it that a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll shows Hillary Clinton leading Barak Obama by more than 20 percent, with a lead of 13 percent among African American voters? While some say the Polls don't reflect Obama's star power. I remember writing some time ago that I felt Obama had peaked much to early. I also mentioned that Howard Dean peaked to early as well. The Washington Post wrote recently, "Obama's campaign could certainly use reenergizing. Since he announced his intention to run for the presidency, Obama -- and the powerful ebb that surrounded him wherever he woke, spoke, ate and sat -- seems to have withered beneath the supernova that is the Clinton campaign." Now Obama vows to challenge Clinton more forcefully AAPP: Have black folks begun to give up on Obama? Should black folks listen more to voices like Randall Robinson, (Who by the way left America) is living on some Island, enjoying warm sun, beaches and no longer experiencing all the hatred of American society. Damn, how fortunate is he and his family? I wonder if Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are is bad as he makes them out to be? Is Mia T on to something? Check out the video again. Listen clearly to the words of Mr. Robinson. I think he may be on to something. Thoughts anyone?

Bill Moyers discusses impeachment

Hat tip to Booman for alerting me that Bill Moyers will be discussing impeachment tonight. In the clip embedded here, Bruce Fein, a conservative who wrote the articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton, states that what Bush's crimes are even more worrisome than Clinton's were. Also on the program is John Nichols, author of The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Bill Moyers Journal Web Site

Will American Rise Up?

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane & My Left Wing click to enlarge The Soviets tried to bring down America over and over but there was one simple method they didn't use that would have overwhelmed the American population and opened the door for a silent Soviet Invasion - sleeping pills in the Big Macs. Why? Because I think that is what is happening now. There really needs to be a Bush Scandal Wiki somewhere - just to keep track of all the scandals and crimes against the Constitution, democracy & humanity, war crimes and out right vandalism and theft. I just can't keep up. With that much scandal and democratic disgrace the ONLY explanation I can think of as to why Americans are not rioting in the street is because the Big Macs are chocked full of sleeping pills. The MSM and the Republicans and their "fake rage" followers almost had a coronary over Bill Clinton's brief bout of oral sex, but BushCo gets a pass? Benedict Arnold got a LOT worse for a LOT less. He planned to give up a fort and failed, Bush gave up the Constitution of the United States of America and is still in office. How is that even possible? Maybe it isn't Big Mac doping. Maybe if this were a basketball game and not our freedom, things would be different. And so concludes Howl Qaeda. I hope you enjoyed the series.

If you are a Gore Fan, Soprano fans feel your pain.

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane & My Left Wing click to enlarge There is a whole groundswell of people who lean into the TV when Al Gore is on. Endless blog entries are made over the tiniest nuance of Gore's expression, body language and SWEET GOD ALMIGHTY - his actual words. But at the end of every show, every clip, every soundbite, every video on the Gore-strained YouTube server farm, we never hear "I am running." The bandwidth used on the nuanced "I have not ruled it out" is utterly amazing. There are only so many ways you can put it, yet the wordsmiths over at the Gore compound have written that phrase in such a way that it means more and more that he will run. At first it was the "I have no plans to run" and that has morphed into "I don't need a 500 day campaign." And that brings us to today's question, what, Al, do you need? What is Al Gore's decision tree? Is there a Hillary element? Of all the books I have read, there is not a lot of love shared between the Clinton and Gore household. Yes, Al and Bill had a kumbaya moment after 9-11, but that was Al and Bill, not Al and Hillary or Tipper and Hillary or Tipper and Bill. If Hillary looks to be poised to win the nomination, will Gore jump in to save We The People? Is there a GOP metric? Would Al be watching the contenders to see what he would face? Would sleepy-headed Fred Thompson (also from Tennessee) raise the ire of Al to push him to Iowa? Is there a "the world is cooking on high and no one is in the damn kitchen" meme that Al watches? No one else seems to be able to do anything about global warming in our current government and frankly, the current crop of 2008 candidates doesn't seem that worried about it. Yes, they all mostly have somewhat passionate position papers on the environment, with, IMO, Edwards on top, but no one that I have seen has Al's presence on the issue and it is a WEIGHTY issue. Is there a war switch? By the looks of our current Defeatocrat Congress, the troops aren't coming home until we get a new President. Will Gore get fed up with the sorry state of international affairs compared to the condition he and Bill left the world in 2000? Could it be as simple "screw this, I'm in?" There are probably a great many factors that would go into this. But my bet, our Larry King Moment won't come until October. Special Note: Today's strip has two new characters; Larry King and Al Gore.

Hillary Clinton and Black Voters

AAPPundit: I always knew Hillary Clinton lost a lot of black support when she supported the war in Iraq. She is going to have a problem in black communities selling her support for the war on faulty CIA info. All she had to do is walk into any African American community in America, and black folks, black women in particular would have told her, "Don't vote for that war." But that is "not" what she does, she's no Bill Clinton, and black folks know it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against Hillary I leave that up to other bloogers and haters. There are many black bloggers who openly Identify and support Hillary Clinton, I'm not one of those bloggers. I just don't like the fact that she refuses to say she made a mistake supporting the War from the beginning. At this point, Obama, Edwards nor Hillary have my vote. But if I'm going to vote the lesser of the three evils. It probably would be... Well, only time and the specific program they lay out, will get my vote. At this point Bill Clinton may have to stand in for Hillary at more than dinners to get black folks (in mass) to vote for her. News Max has an interesting article on that point. Hillary Clinton Struggling to Win Black Voters Even in a Harlem church where former U.S. President Bill Clinton is revered, his wife and presidential aspirant Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has some work to do with black women once expected to be firmly in her camp. "Right now, she's my front-runner, but that may change the more I learn about Obama," said Angela Lago, a retired hospital recruiter among the ranks of black women voters looking at Sen. Barack Obama as an alternative among Democratic contenders. Danese Smalls, who sells jewelry in the historic black neighborhood of New York, said she changed her mind after Clinton voted to support the U.S.- led war in Iraq. "She lost me on that. Now I'm not convinced she's any different from any other politician," Smalls said. More> Cross posted at African American Political Pundit and Independent Bloggers Alliance

What would Hillary, Obama or Edwards do?

AAPPundit says: I just finished revisiting the article Carribbean Boat People: Clinton's First Crisis, written by Daniel James back in December 1992. It's a great article. I read it again after posting the fact that (hat Tip Angela) Hillary Clinton is getting support from Timbaland. I wondered, why are people deciding who to support so early in the election cycle, when we don't know the full positions of the candidates yet. Then I wondered, if elected President what would Hillary, Obama or Edwards do if confronted with the Haitian and Cuban boat people crisis? Would Hillary do things different from what her husband did? What would Obama Do? What would Edwards do? Has anyone ever posed the question to them? Did Timbaland? Read the article if you would. Then ask the question: What would Hillary, Obama or Edwards do? Do you know? --------- Carribbean Boat People: Clinton's First Crisis by Daniel James By the time he is inaugurated on Jan. 20, President-elect Bill Clinton may be faced with a record flood of both Haitian and Cuban boat people. Besides, immigration from the Dominican Republic -- our biggest Caribbean immigrant sending country -- and Jamaica is even greater, though underpublicized. The convergence of these trends could produce a major crisis. Clinton's election, reports The New York Times (Nov. 23), made Haitians "giddy" with expectation that he will either restore democracy to their unhappy country or welcome them into the U.S. "with open arms." Hundreds of boats are now being readied to sail the nearly 500 miles of choppy Caribbean waters to Miami, Coast Guard aerial surveillance reveals. Some are being built with wood ripped from their ramshackle homes. A parallel rush of boat people is expected from that other oppressed Caribbean island, Cuba. They have continued crowding into Florida since the 1980 Mariel boatlift, when 125,000 of them arrived. They are not necessarily reacting to Clinton's election. Quite simply, as one Cuban refugee explained: "There is nothing in Cuba. Everyone wants to leave." The Haitian Problem Haiti's situation is worst of all. Generations of corrupt politicians, businessmen, and generals have virtually destroyed a once-flourishing economy, while illiterate peasants have eroded the once fertile land and cut down the trees to burn and sell them for charcoal. To aggravate matters, Haiti's population grows exponentially. The UN estimates (official Haitian figures are notoriously unreliable) that it has increased from 4.5 million in 1970 to about 6.8 million today. Its natural increase rate is 2.9 percent, highest in the hemisphere. The underlying problem is that Haiti, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic and other Caribbean countries suffer from economic growth rates that are too low to support high population growth rates. (Cuba, though with a lower population growth rate, nevertheless has more people than its economy can afford.) Unless steps are taken to reduce population to sustainable levels, boatlifts are virtually guaranteed to continue indefinitely. President-elect Clinton has not yet addressed the much greater overall Caribbean problem, but has commented on the Haitian exodus. During the election campaign, he said he opposed President Bush's policy of interdicting and repatriating Haitian asylum-seekers. He indicated that he would be generous toward them, implying that they were fleeing to the U.S. to escape persecution under Haiti's military regime. That attitude, however, aroused concern among his own followers as well as opponents that he would open up the floodgates to Haitian boat people. At a Capitol Hill press conference on Nov. 19, Clinton tried to allay such fears. He said that he stood by his opposition to Bush's policy yet agreed that "the distinction between economic and political refugees was a legitimate one and if you wipe it away altogether you do violence to our immigration laws" -- the policy's raison d'etre. He further reassured, "I've tried to send out a clear signal...that I think it would be very unwise for anybody to think that I'm going to articulate a policy that would promote mass migration." But he also said he wanted to give Haitians "the chance to make a case that they should be granted asylum in this country temporarily until we can see a democratically elected government restored to Haiti." However, the return to office of freely elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who was ousted by the military in September 1991, would not "restore" democracy and halt the tide of boat people. Democracy has been non-existent in Haiti since its independence, in 1804, and emigration is likely to continue rising as it has for over a generation regardless of who rules. The net result, so far, of Clinton's offer to grant Haitians "temporary" asylum has been to tacitly encourage them to prepare to flee their country en masse by Jan. 20. The Bush Administration argues that its repatriation policy is justified because Haitians are leaving their country not for political, but economic reasons -- one cannot make a living there. Nevertheless, in July the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Bush policy violates the Refugee Act of 1980. The Administration has persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, holding that the ruling interfered with its foreign policy. The Supreme Court is expected to issue its verdict early in 1993. The chief difference between Bush and Clinton is that the latter would give Haitians a "chance to make [their] case" for asylum. But Clinton did not specify where that might take place -- a key question. No third country is willing to accept Haitians en masse for screening. Our naval base at Guantanamo, Cuba, where Haitians have been interned before repatriation, can accommodate only 12,500. That leaves the continental U.S. as the only alternative site. But such an option is fraught with frightening implications. More> This entry is crossposted on African American Political Pundit and the Independent Blogger Alliance