Failing to win white voters in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton needs her black firewall like never before. Her speech yesterday in Harlem touched on criminal justice and economic opportunity. Those remarks follow a stop in majority-black Flint, Mich., to decry its lead-water crisis, and a debate in segregated Milwaukee, where she pledged to “tackle” discrimination. She also took a shot at Bernie Sanders’ criticism of Wall Street with the question: “If we broke up the big banks tomorrow, would that end racism?”
This bears repeating:
"According to the Justice Policy Institute, the Clinton administration oversaw the largest rise in inmates in American history. In 1995, aided by federal crime-bill funding, states spent more on prisons than on universities. By the end of the Clinton years, more people worked in the criminal justice system than in social services. According to the Sentencing Project, 13 percent of black men could not vote because of criminal records."
The deregulatory craze coupled with the privatization of formerly government-run (and regulated) functions led to a prison-building movement, lobbyist funded.
With NAFTA sending jobs to Mexico, and "crime" laws feeding warm bodies into the prison-industrial system, the Black community suffered tremendously. Nor did "Ending Welfare as we know it" do much other than criminalize the poor while granting leeway to corporate criminals like the Koch Brothers.
The only way Hillary can speak highly of her own record is through obscuring the truth or relying on the faulty memories of voters.
Sanders should speak to her record on issues that affect blacks.
Hillary simply calling the black vote "her firewall" is racist. Is that not obvious? It is a suggestion that blacks - "well you know how blacks think" - can be taken for granted as "they" all think the same.
Wow how has that not been an issue.
Bernie for Prez and Warren for VP.
Obama merely represents that the American public has moved a long way for the better. Ascribing the goodness of the electorate to Obama is a huge mistake.
The province of Ontario Canada has a gay women premier. Good for the people of Ontario. But while Wynne talks the talk of progressive she is a nasty two faced neo-liberal.
If it proves anything it is the public has become more enlightened and that those in power are all equal regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. (unfortunately being equal to nasty old white men - but equal yes)
But it drives home Bernie's point- it is political contributions (legalized bribery - legalized by none other than those who accept the bribes) that is the root of all problems.
Hillary is making promises that you just have to wonder whether she could face a reaction from the public if she did get elected and then went back on all these very direct statements of what she would do. Would there be a backlash then because it would be plainly obvious that she made these promises only to prevent Bernie from actually trying to make them real for people. Every time Hillary talks about taking on Wall St. and then takes their bribe money ... you just have to wonder. The same goes with the recent > "Gee, I'm all for Obama and he's black Hillary" while Bernie marched for civil rights the Clintons made an appearance on Arsenio Hall and Bill played a saxophone.
So how black is Hillary's civil rights record? Just what has she done - we know what she keeps saying but what exactly has she (or Bill) actually done for improving civil rights like has Bernie?
Is this Bernie getting arrested for civil rights protest on the South Side of Chicago? I think it is.
But it was so long ago it doesn't count, we're told.
And of course what fueled the explosive prison construction was the war on drugs. Michelle Alexander does a marvelous expose of this in The New Jim Crow. So we have a vicious three strikes law, jobs exportation, temporary and inadequate welfare but plenty work in the military to support the agenda of the 1%. Hillary who supported all this does not deserve the vote of anyone who has the welfare of others at heart.
Tom, with Derrick Jackson's permission his article can be republished in major black papers across the country starting with South Carolina.
I suspect you are quite right. Obama could not have been elected without the substantial vote of white folks.
I will not pretend to know the motivations behind black voters. I can however tell you why so many black politicians are (reluctantly) backing Hillary at this point. They all well know of the Clintons proclivities toward revenge. If, and that's a big if, she should win the White House and a main stream democratic politico, especially a black one, would have "gone against the family" and supported Sanders, well, I can't say much for their political future.
The Clintons have always marched on a road of bones. This year is their last chance, and they will stop at nothing to once again capture the keys the big house. Just watch, if Bernie ties, or wins, in Nevada, and can get Hil's lead in South Carolina down to ten or twelve points, the Clinton's will let slip the dogs of war.
The more this thing goes south for Hillary, it becomes apparent that the Clintons will do everything in their power to win, up to and including destroying what is left of the Democratic Party.
As far as I'm concerned, any black person who votes for Hillary has just not been paying attention.
And...if Hillary really does want to be elected POTUS may I humbly suggest that she stop appearing in public with the likes of Charlie Rangle. That man would sell the souls of all of his constituents for a cheeseburger and a blow job. You could slam the door in ol Charlie's face all you want, he'd just ooze under it.
WOD/private prison complex black victims can't vote.
Black churches bribed by Partnership for a Drug Free America and other Drug War profiteers will have their large congregations vote for Hillary who is funded by the same.
I'm more inclined to believe that local black politicians are dependent upon the Democratic Party to fund their re-election campaigns.
Just like big money controls Congress, the DNC uses its funding to support black and Hispanic and other local politicians as a tool to enforce compliance. Those local politicians promote the policies and candidates approved by the DNC.
What got to me was the way Clinton didn't even realize the general comments she was making were glaringly ironic.
She talked about politicians showing up the day before election to curry favor with potential Voters. What is she doing now? Currying favor with black Voters she's ignored since she ran for President against Obama. That's called projection, and is most often seen in republicans when they accuse their opponents of the wrongdoings they're guilty of themselves.
She's always been a wolf in sheep's clothing as far as her political affiliation goes.
I agree. I viewed the Michelle Alexander interview on Democracy Now.
It's ludicrous that ANYONE would buy Hillary's assertion that taking vast sums from Wall St & bankers has no influence over her voting record.
In addition to being "so long ago it doesn't count", we are also being told that it was not in the South.
Recalling protests that I participated in on the West Coast during that era, the heads beaten in by cops at West Coast demonstrations were no less painful for the recipients than the pain experienced by protesters in the South.
I don't agree with this for the following reasons:
Obama was an UNKNOWN and that meant that mostly what voters had to "go on" were his promises. Most people took him at his word and from that word got the impression that he'd close the Guantanamo prison camp, bring at least one foreign war to an end, and improve lives in ways that created a distinct departure from the policies of the Bush Junta.
The nation was badly bruising from the Bush Junta and the calls out to Hope and Change moved hearts and souls. It truly was a sort of "anything but Bush" anticipated "detox."
I don't blame the electorate for BEING deceived. The ones who enact the deceptions are the blameworthy agents.
A better case could be made for Obama's 2nd term. However, I am astounded by how many otherwise intelligent people get absolutely STUCK in bifurcated frames.
I lost a woman friend because when I used to point out all the ways that the Democrats (due to the Democratic Leadership Council) were assuming policies typically tied to "the pro-war, and pro-business Republican camp," she insisted that I was a Republican!
In other words, by pointing out the deceptions that have overtaken the Dems (due to the pervasive TAINT of Big Money), the ONLY conclusion she could draw was that I must be "on the other team."
I had this debate with a man who I used to respect. He sent me a "forward" that was supposedly taken in London. It had photos of Arabs holding up very anti-American (or West) signs. Some of them had violent statements.
I responded by reminding him that anyone living in the Middle East would naturally be angry given U.S./NATO foreign policy. He wrote back to ask why I "hated America." I told him his old Marines training had gotten the best of him.
I just took a long bike ride with my dogs and I always get clear thought at such times. What hit me was based on the logistics of neuro-linquistic programming. George Lakoff could explain the particulars (the neuro science) much better than I can, but essentially what it comes down to is that ESTABLISHED THOUGHT works like cognitive tracks. And most people follow the existing tracks.
My man friend could not understand how I could "take the side" of the Arabs. That's how he viewed my attempt at explaining the response of the Arab world to a decade plus of bombings of their lives, homes, and infrastructure. All he could see were TWO teams. Either I was on the "USA, USA! good white hats team," or otherwise the hated opposite.
This is also why I point out the cognitive deception found in the way the term WE is so often used. It takes what the dominant culture/players set into motion and not only attributes that to all citizens, it makes ANY principled opposition (or Goddess forbid, a better alternative) invisible.
Just like every demographic, blacks have a certain percentage of Vichy cases within their ranks. It appears that more young Americans are seeing through the Vichy cases in 2016.
Not sure what the Vichy cases refers to.
While the talking head were talking about Clinton's firewall of the "black Vote," they were showing demographic breakdowns by age, education, gender, and I can't remember what else.
What struck me was the fact that there was no breakdown by younger black Voters. Despite its deficiencies, the progress made against race-based discrimination has had its effect upon the youth of today. I'm in my 60's; as I look around me I see teens and twenties having interracial friendships to a much greater degree than my generation and the generations that came after me.
Bottom line, expect to see the black vote by young blacks to go to Sanders, not Clinton.
Ms. Clinton: "If we broke up the banks tomorrow, would that end racism?" No, Hilary, it would not. Nor would it prevent police violence, or give women equal pay for equal work, or share the nations wealth with its citizens. Likely it would not kill the zika virus either. She is waxing moronic in her desperation.