Both the Clintons and Obamas have made it fair game to think about their candidacy for the White House as a two for one deal. As people are voting in this primary for Hillary and Barack, Bill and Michelle are also on peoples minds. In many ways, it’s fair to say that without Bill, Hillary would not have her current status within the Democratic Party and without Michelle, Barack would not be so successful inside the Black community.
Within the Democratic Primaries the two front runners (with spouses in tow) have presented specifics that establish them as the choice for the Democratic Nomination. The below is a snapshot of the most recent 20 year presidential history and how it impacts their candidacies.
Hillary Clinton on Experience
Hillary Clinton’s campaign is attempting to frame her candidacy as a historical act that would propel the United States of America into an era of progressive politics cemented in liberal ideals. Key issues include: health care, women and children’s issues
Barack Obama on Change
Barack Obama’s campaign maintains that he is the change the United States of America need. He suggests the historical significance of his campaign can reestablish the USA’s global integrity. Key issues: immigration reform, reforming mandatory minimum, health care and ending energy independence
Hillary Rodham married Bill Clinton in 1975. They began their elected service in 1976 and have served as elected officials on the local and national level for more than 40 years. http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html
Barack Obama married Michelle LaVaughn Robinson in 1992. They began their service to the public at around the same time in 1988 and have served as public servants either as organizers, civil rights attorneys or establishing community programs. They have served as elected officials on the local level for the past 11 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
In short:
The Clintons have been knee deep in public office for the past 40 years while the Obamas have had their heads buried in books and in community programs. A brief look at major social and political events over the past 20 years may shed some light on why voters are split on the two seemingly opposite campaigns.
Translating Experience:
The United States of America has done some very good things over the past 15 years but there are some great embarrassments as well. The consequences of those embarrassments on America and the global community are extensive. When the Clintons brag on their “experience” consider some events of those years.
• Rwandan genocide - North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
• Failed Welfare Reform – Whitewater Scandal - Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
• Hillary Clinton’s failed Health Care plan - Refusal to apologize for slavery
• Initiated “3 strikes and you’re out” resulting in the incarceration of over 2 million people today
• Bill’s failed efforts at attacking Osama Bil Laden- Monica Lewinsky….
• The Death of Ron Brown
This is not about bashing the Clintons because many great things happened under their watch:
• Brady Bill – Nelson Mandela becomes President of South Africa
• Numerous Black nominees to top US offices and Judges – Advances in space exploration to Mars
• Bill Clinton goes to Africa - Northern Ireland agree to tentative truce –
• 1st Fiscal Surplus in 30 years
If you add events of the Clinton years to events of the Reagan era (Iran Contra Affair), the Bush I global ignorance term (losing his lunch on the Japanese Prime Minister), and the buffoonery of the Bush II years (the Iraq war, failing to get Bin Laden in Afghanistan, the sub-prime mortgage crisis) it’s not hard to see why claiming 35 years of experience in politics may not be the best selling point. It actually reminds everyone that you are part of the problem and that you are part of the reason why the United States have fallen from grace and lost its global respect.
Translate Change:
With this in mind, it makes perfect sense why voters gravitate to the message of “change” from the Obama campaign. Anybody with an internet connection (thank you Al Gore) will equate the Clintons extensive “experience” with the extensive shame many US residents feel. Then for good measure, the Clintons must remember that they are attacking what is seen as Black America’s version of the Kennedy’s, a physical manifestation of Martin Luther King, Jr’s dream, an attack on Black pride, the promise of civil rights, hope and opportunity for Black people, ultimately “change”.
Change is good, change is necessary and during these moments when we are deciding if it is change that we want, the Black community must reflect and decide what change means for them.
Robert Rooks
Lorenzo Jones
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I may have overlooked this in your article, but didn't more black people go to prison under the Clinton watch than any other time in the history of Amerikkka??
Bill Clinton has always reminded me of a big time pimp.
He also did not inhale, he is the one of the biggest liar's in American politics that got caught.
If we learn anything from history it is a White person will alway lie to Black America. I hope for our children's sake and our own that we choose wisely. I am tired of Whites representing me, a Black Woman, as if they could. Once they get the power, they only look out for their friends...guess what it is NOT us. Let's not fall for another lie. From what I have read, seen and heard Obama hasn't lied to us, yet.
How do ou start a conversation with black and latino Christian leaders about Obama's affiliation with the UCC? In my opinion, a fight for social justice is what Jesus would do, however as we so clearly saw in the last "election" Christians around the United States were bamboozled by gay marriage and a claim to faith by Bush that I have failed to see. I fear for Obama- I pray for him too. And his family.
I like this rundown of the Clinton years--(a little) good and (a whole lot of) bad. I think what the Clinton's succeeded at the most was to institute a new type of political paradigm for the Democratic Party--one that progressives and people of conscience have rejected. They do the art of politics, i.e. compromise, but the criticism there is that they've compromised on everything including their principles.
Would they have continued with progressive reforms if they'd not lost on universal healthcare? Maybe, but their less-than-progressive reforms would have continued at the same time.
The prison system did jump off during that period. That stage was set by Bush and Reagan. Clinton followed along, and used it to gain political capital.
I think you guys hit on a point here--that the Obamamania call for change is partly about the ability to see beyond the "politics as usual", i.e. "compromise as usual" affair. But leaders who have vision are often unable to realize it if the people aren't with them, pushing and protecting them to fight for it. If Obama wins, do people step up to the possibilities (assuming they exist), or does Obama get eaten alive in the snakepit that is Washington?
Part of Clinton's promise is that she can survive the snakepit--but as Bill showed, what they do to survive that poison may actually contribute to its poisonousness.
If there was anything to be said about change I want to hear it from an organizer before a politican. Let's not forget when Hillary was solicited for an organizer position with the great Lynsky she turnded down the job. Why? I guess it easier to "help" people as opposed to working with them...Hillary's ass is in trouble
Post a Comment