Here we go again; here we go again; is there an end in sight? Maybe the fact that I support Barack Obama is the reason why some of you out there in blogland refuse to admit my truths; so I will plod through this one, and maybe then you tell me where I am wrong.
In this presidential campaign cycle, we have now seen on many occasions supporters of Hillary Clinton making disparaging statements about Barack Obama. It happened again last night. On cable television station New York One. Congressman Charlie Rangel-a rabid Hilary Clinton supporter- displayed signs of his rapidly encroaching senility, when he called Barack Obama a fool. The program was “Inside City Hall”, and the host was Dominic Carter. He further said that some of Barack’s statements (supposed) on the MLK, JFK and LBJ issue were stupid and dumb. And I am now told that he even went on CNN to say that Obama was an “absolute idiot”; is this true?
I don’t know where Rangel heard these things, thus I could only assume that he is losing it-his mind,that is. Barack Obama has never uttered a negative word against Hillary’s remarks, beyond saying that they were “ill-advised”. That’s it. Period. He never called her names or even suggested racism from her remarks; in fact he went public to say she works in the area of civil rights.
The discussion centered on the raging controversy behind remarks made by both Bill and Hillary Clinton, over the past few weeks. Rangel was as disingenuous as a seven dollar bill while he evaded truths as to who the real culprits are in this brouhaha. He defended his Clinton-masters with the skill of a seasoned good-for-nothing- politician that he is. It was horrible. It was another classic example of why I love these inept black elected officials so much. Charlie Rangel strangled the truth as he tried to defend the indefensible things Hillary said in relation to LBJ, JFK and MLK.
So now, for many consecutive days, the Clinton machine has had minions attack Barack; this last one coming even after Obama had put out the classiest of statements yesterday, trying to defuse the charged atmosphere. Then they lie and say that Barack started it all; and that he is doing it to win the black votes in South Carolina; and that he is the one who injected race and gender in this campaign. This type of thing hurts Obama and they all know it, and this is why I have come to believe that it was all crafted by the Clinton brain-trust. They fear the very thought of losing this nomination so much, that they would go to the nadir of political decency to win.
All these attacks on Obama increased when he forged ahead in the Iowa polls; they continued after he won that state, and heightened further when the polls showed him poised to win New Hampshire. The Clinton Machine has bluntly -and through its many lap dogs- tried to goad Barack Obama into a race based and gender based imbroglio. It is to their advantage. They have attacked him left and right, trying to provoke him into retaliation. What they don’t realize is that they are chasing away voters. If you go up on the national blogs you will find countless people now saying that they will not vote for Hillary Clinton in November-if she becomes the nominee of the democrats. The Clintons prefer to throw away the general election rather than fight Barack fairly. This power-hungry desperation might just be psychotic folks; be afraid; be very afraid. The Clintons have a lot of explaining to do; a lot.
All polls over the past half year or so, had shown Hillary leading Barack amongst black voters until he won Iowa. Today, the feeling in many quarters is that as soon as the polls showed movement of black voters towards Obama, the Clinton-machine panicked; thus the racializing of this contest. Up to that point, this was a race-neutral campaign. In fact, just a few months ago, the raging debate was: Is Obama black enough (for black voters)? The Clintons should be ashamed of themselves for injecting race to the mix.
What led to Rangel’s outburst on NY1 was Hillary’s “Martin Luther King” faux pas. In trying to blindly defend her, he made some idiotic comments that will come back to haunt him. You see, Hilary Clinton was the one who made those ridiculous statements (not Obama). She was the one who portrayed President Lydon B. Johnson as the elemental facilitator of civil rights legislation. She was the one who elevated LBJ to the status of some legislative genius; she was the one who minimized MLK’s role in civil rights legislation. She should have known that you couldn’t promote LBJ to a higher status or role in such legislation at the expense of Dr. King; or in comparison to MLK. In her rush to come back at Obama and score fine points too: she misspoke.
Look, I am not even hinting that she is racist (the Clintons haven’t demonstrated this in any shape form or fashion over the years); but you don’t laud a president this highly for being pressured to push legislation through Congress; legislation that was already enshrined in the letter and spirit of the US constitution. Civil rights and human rights for blacks, whites, reds, browns, whatever color, is guaranteed by the our creed: “that all men (and women) are created equal”. You laud the people willing to sacrifice life and limb to expose America’s hypocrisy; you “big up” the brave folks (of all colors) who were willing to face ostracism, victimization, isolation and such, to stand up with Dr. King. You elevate the people who were willing to fight and die for their rights; they are the true heroes, not LBJ- a man who was just doing his job; that’s all. For Christ’s sake: Dr. King gave his life to the cause.
LBJ was reacting to external forces; it’s not like he was proactively going out there to do the right thing. He like most of white America had to be shamed and forced into doing what was right; which brings me to Hillary’s caucasianized version of historical revisionism; a version where the white man is the catalyst and the blacks mere pawns or instruments. A version where the white man (in shining armor) is the knight who rides in to save the day. It’s minimalism at its insensitive worst. The forces that led to civil rights in the USA were in place long before MLK, JFK or LBJ were born. These forces started with the abolition movement (slavery), and with white people like Wilberforce, Pitt, Sharpe, countless Quakers, and other people of goodwill, human decency and integrity; and later people of all colors, creeds, nationalities and races. LBJ was a latecomer to all this; and a reluctant one to booth. It took hundreds of years to get to civil rights legislation when that should have been done the day the constitution was ratified.
But it goes even deeper than that. There is this on-going attempt by Clinton fanatics to embellish (and sanitize) the civil rights records of these two; it will backfire, because one day: “truth will out” (Macbeth).
During the fight to pass civil rights legislation Hillary Clinton was on the other side. And this is simple to ascertain since she headed up a Barry Goldwater for president group. In her book “Living History” she describes herself as a “Goldwater Girl” (right down to the cowgirl outfit).
Listen to what Dr. Martin Luther King had to say about Barry Goldwater: “On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal”. How can we ever forget that Goldwater’s positions on civil rights and issues of that ilk were central to his run for president? If Goldwater had his way, blacks would be still at the back of the bus.
The point being that in 1964, Hillary Clinton was on the wrong side of the civil rights issue; she was on the wrong side of history; just as she is today in her opposition to Obama.
So if Mr. Johnson (BET) could try to castigate Obama for his youthful indiscretions- as he clumsily tried to do yesterday- then what does he have to say about Hillary’s?
And didn’t Bill Clinton also take a pass on civil rights in the sixties? Look, we had young people out there giving their lives for the cause (Swerner, Chaney and Goodman); while Bill was smoking marijuana without inhaling (he says). We had young people marching up and down the streets, facing dogs tearing out their flesh, facing police brutality and the like, while the Clintons took a powder.
Ed Koch as a youngster went to the South during summers to register black voters; he risked his life when he did this. And C. Virginia Fields went to jail with MLK; she was only sixteen years old; where were the Clintons? Now all of a sudden they are civil rights champions: gimme a break. The Clinton record on civil rights is a fairy tale. This whole thing is so hypocritical coming from the Clintons it isn’t funny. Their credibility in certain sections of the black community is now forever shot. Wait till we examine their true record on contemporary issues facing the black community; you will see the fairy tale unfold even more. I will eventually get to that at some other time.
So when a guy like Charles Rangel makes these kinds of reckless statements, about one of the most eloquent speakers (Obama) in American politics ever, you have to shake your head and say: this has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime. Why are they trying to put-down one of America’s brightest lights? Could it be jealousy and envy?
Always remember that there are very few people, who possess the moral courage to support the success of others without envy. Remember Cousin Rocky told you that before; and now I tell you again.
Stay tuned-in: I also told you my pen was smoking.