Should Obama pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate?

Post Reply
User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Should Obama pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate?

Post by Guysanto » Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:14 am

Should Obama pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate? If so, tell us your reasons. If not, who do you think would be the better pick?

Tidodo
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:07 am

Post by Tidodo » Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:18 pm

Although I think it should have been the other way around, Obama has earned his dues - based on ill-advised democratic party rules - and thus deserves his place on the top of the ticket. Picking Hillary as his running mate is the only chance he has to win the presidency, based on the way things are now in the country. He cannot win without Hillary's supporters votes. The math does not add up. Had Hillary won via the support of superdelegates, most of his supporters would not have voted for Hillary in the general elections. I talked to many Hillary supporters, they feel the same way toward Obama's win through superdelegates. But, I suspect that they would compromise if Hillary is on the ticket.

Someone wrote this morning that Hillary's supporters have nowhere else to go in the general elections and that Obama would be weak to offer her the VP job due to the position she took in the speech last night. That writer is right. Hillary's supporters have nowhere else to go on election day - they won't vote for McCain - they would stay home and not vote at all. But, the writer forgot Reagan democrats. Many in this country still can't find a difference between democrats and republicans. Go figure! The reason Hillary supporters would sit home on election day is that Obama supporters during the primaries failed to see beyond his winning the primaries and alienated Hillary them. That leaves Obama no choice but to choose her. Sweet talking them won't do it, regardless of how good a speaker Obama is.

If that is not enough of a reason, the combination of the two of them is a slam dunk. The only rationale against it is emotional. I hope Obama is smarter than his supporters and that he will put reason before emotion. The Hillary supporters who would not vote for him would use their emotions and not their reasons to not support him. He must be mindful of that and preempt it.

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:30 pm

I would vote for the Obama-Clinton ticket versus McCain-anyone at this point. That being said, I also believe that far from being a dream ticket, this would in fact be a nightmare ticket for Obama. For one thing, he would have to wake up at 3:00am day after day, as his phone rings incessantly, with Hillary on the other end wondering where Bill is.

Seriously speaking, who wants Bill Clinton back to the White House???? I hope that Obama is smarter than this and will not give in to the Clintonite pressure cooker. The only people who think that Obama cannot win without Hillary are the same people who felt that Obama could not win in the first place.

I don't think that Michelle Obama could stand Hillary Clinton, nor do I think that Barack Obama could stand Bill Clinton calling attention to himself constantly in intemperate ways. One does not make History in order to be saddled with drama Queens and drama Kings.

I would love to see a smart, ambitious, and imaginative woman as Obama's running mate for political reasons, but Hillary Clinton does not have a lock on that particular description. In fact, she may be 'damaged goods' at this point. I would inspect her well before purchase, as one does to a mango. Besides Bill Clinton, there may be many other worms just below the surface.

However, Obama has earned the right to pick whomever he would feel most comfortable running with (which practically excludes HRC). If, by process of elimination, he ends up with her anyhow, he would still have my vote, though I would sort of feel sorry for him. I imagine that would be the same for the vast majority of democrats who will indeed go to the polls and vote against John McCain. Few stayed home during the primaries, and I predict that even fewer will stay home in November.

The country is thirsting for CHANGE. And even though, Obama will not nearly have the institutional power necessary to bring much if any change on a political level, socially things will change (as they have begun to change already with the mere realization that a black/non-black man can one day claim the presidency for all of us). This will unalterably change the mindset of most fifth-graders in this society. I say 'fifth-graders', but it's really a mindset that opens new horizons for every minority person in this country, regardless of age and social status. America also wants to be well-respected once more at the international level, in a way that brute military force can no longer achieve. The staggering debt (national deficits), the decline of the dollar, the housing crisis, etc have just added salt to our injuries. People will vote for Barack Obama, not even knowing HOW he will bring change. I already predict that they will be disappointed, once he gets to office and sizes the truly monumental proportions of "this mess the United States has become". Change will take a lot longer than most people imagine. But the people have already spoken. They want CHANGE. Period. And one thing that they can be sure about is that John McCain does not even represent the beginning of change. I actually liked McCain eight years ago, but today he appears to be the shell of whom he used to be ( I admit that my perception of McCain at that time may have been terribly wrong... ). When I look at him today, I see Reagan in his last year in office, already weakened by signs of accelerated senility. That will be painfully obvious, mark my words, in the presidential debates that will have to take place. While Obama has not proven to be quite the skilled debater one would have expected him to be, for all his oratorical prowess, against McCain he surely is a SLAM DUNK.

As for the racist vote against Obama, all I can say is "Bring it on!" We will overcome that too... unless they manage to kill him.

Obama-anyone can trump McCain-anyone. I never said that it would be easy (against Hillary) and I am not saying now that it will be easy (against McCain). But it can be done, and it will be done, in spite of all skeptics on Ann Pale or any place else for that matter.

Leoneljb
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:29 pm

Post by Leoneljb » Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:28 pm

Like Tidodo, I agree that an Obama/Clinton is the right way and only way to go for a stronger Democratic ticket. Anything on the contrary would not be fruitful.

It is indeed a Historical Day! But, Politics can not rely on History alone. There is a lot of strategies and intellect to reaching the end-point. And, doing anything with emotions won't do, and it is not politics.

One doesn't have to agree with a VP all the time to have a stronger ticket. I believe that JFK and LBJ had different views based on the Historian. But, they shared the same organisation. This is the difference between the way politics are done in the US to back home, I suppose.

About being skeptic, one can support a Team and still doubt that it can not reach the Final. There are others who only go for Winners or winning Team. There are various Supporters who support differently. But still share the trophey if won.

I would like to say more. But, let's wait and see how the Politicians are approaching this matter first.

Leonel

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Wed Jun 04, 2008 7:07 pm

As I said before, the only people who think that Obama cannot win without Hillary are the same people who felt that Obama could not win in the first place.

To be honest, the one person who has (more than any other) made sure that Hillary Clinton will not be on the ticket is Hillary Clinton herself.

At some point in time, it looked like a dream ticket. Now it merely looks like a nightmare. And it's all Hillary and Bill's fault.

But since I was not put on the three-person VP search team, let us wait and see...

Men mwen pa kwè Obama pral pran nan kalite kraponaj sa yo.

jafrikayiti
Posts: 218
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:16 pm

Post by jafrikayiti » Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:12 pm

Well, if Hillary is in the running to become Obama's VP, he might as well also add Reverend Wright and Monica Lewinski in the list of potential VPs.

Hillary as vp would be deadlier than any one of these two.

Mrs. Clinton already indicated how she is looking forward to the faithful "month of June" - her eyes are on the prize - she is determined to realize her dream of becoming President. She can't wait to claim the title which she is convinced is hers by birth.

Obama has already renounced his pastor and his church in order to please racist democrats. He is still trying to hold on to his wife and daughters but if now he has to adopt Hillary as VP, he might as well change his name to Tom Jackson and declare that he would rather see Hillary run as president and he will be happy to be her humble servant - like Colin 'Uncle Tom' Powell was mighty happy to serve Bush.

What a joke, Hillary is crying again, give her the vice-presidency or else....

Tidodo
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:07 am

Post by Tidodo » Thu Jun 05, 2008 6:21 am

[quote]...in to the Clintonite pressure cooker. The only people who think that Obama cannot win without Hillary are the same people who felt that Obama could not win in the first place...[/quote]

[quote]As I said before, the only people who think that Obama cannot win without Hillary are the same people who felt that Obama could not win in the first place. ...

To be honest, the one person who.....[/quote]

Guy,

It seems it is becoming like a broken record! But, seriously, here is the original post or question you asked.

[quote]Should Obama pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate? If so, tell us your reasons. If not, who do you think would be the better pick?[/quote]

We took you to your words, Guy! Your post sounded like a genuine search for opinions! Allright, Guy, I have to allow you to gloat into having 20/20 vision into the future that Obama would win the democratic candidature. Then, I would self congratulate that I had 20/20 vision in the future, as well, by predicting that his candidacy will interfere with Hillary's!

[quote] ....But the people have already spoken. They want CHANGE... [/quote]

Those people you mentioned above are just the members of the Democratic party who bothered to go voting in the primaries, and whose vote was counted at 100%, and not undemocratically cut to 50%. By the way, I did not realize that where youy live in this country determines the percentage of participation you are allowed in so-called democratic elections! These people, you mentioned above, are not the majority of the active electorate in the country, in terms of republicans and independents. But, if you look at the way the majority of the American people who have voted in the past 30 years, or so, you would find that they don't want CHANGE. They are happy for America to be the biggest superpower in the world and to bully any other weaker country who interfered with its will. It is important, in the glee of victory, not to confuse the party with the country. I know you understand that. And that is why you cautioned about change coming slowly. But remember, an honorable concept, like "liberal" who represented peace loving and human rights respected people, somehow has become synonymous of a dirty word in the past 30 years in american politics.

Like you, I want true democracy where participation in government, limited only by talent and hard work, is not hampered by bigotry and economic interests. All Leonel and I are trying to tell you is to keep in mind the current reality. Of course, you are right, that this reality should not shackle those with talents, like Obama, who promises a better future and may make a difference. Had I known his oratory skills the way I do now I would not have discounted him like I did before. I wish him well and look forward to him becoming president even though I gave him no chance at the beginning. May he be allowed to put his talents at the service of the country! But, keep your wrath for people who would do anything between now and November to prevent Obama from becoming president. Leonel and I are not part of this group. We just don't want our hopes for celebration of democracy be dashed again!

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:51 am

Tidodo, any "wrath" (truly laughable!) from my part would not be directed at you or Leonel but at the political ideologies that: a) seek to limit Obama as a free man, always reminding him of his shackles even after he breaks them; b) perpetuate the romanticism of the Clinton era, that I would express as "the sun rises with Bill Clinton (with extension) and sets with Bill Clinton (with extension)".

As I plainly stated, I would vote for an Obama-Clinton ticket any day versus John McCain-anybody. The choice of a Vice-President is not really all that determining of electoral success anyhow, in my opinion. It's of course tremendously important in terms of who will be staged or showcased as the next President of the United States (if the President gets assassinated or ends his presidential term with a high level of popularity). There, I think, is the main argument for Hillary as she already, even in this moment of triumph for Obama, takes her first step toward her next presidential bid.

So, my beef is not truly with you or Leonel or anyone who thinks that Hillary represents the best choice for Obama's VP. It surely is a matter of opinion. However, the drumbeat for Hillary is implacable: "Obama cannot win without Hillary... Hillary has received more popular votes than Obama (which is a curious lie, according to some respected experts... In her new math, Hillary simply does not count caucus votes, only primaries. In fact, caucus votes do not even count for one half of their value, they are simply nonexistent... welcome to Hillary's new democracy)... You had better pick me OR ELSE! ... I have nearly 18 million voters in my pocket whose votes I may commandeer not to go your way... Hey, do not pick ME at your own risk! ... Party unity begins with me... Absolutely no one else will do!" Those are the political lines that you can legitimately say I feel contemptuous about.

If Hillary is your choice, Leonel's choice, or anyone else's, hey... I'll go along with that, as long as that is OBAMA's free and unrestricted choice as well. Please don't congratulate the man and emasculate him in the same breath. It's okay for you or anyone to prefer Hillary! I seriously, very seriously, mean that. Of course, we may differ on that one, but that is perfectly OK. My only problem is the evolution of the inevitability of the second coming of Clinton by the front door into the inevitability of the second coming of Clinton, but this time by the back door.

I would like to open the door to the evaluation of other candidates for Obama, such as Gov. Kathleen Sibelius of Kansas. I do not know all that much about her, but I do know that she has been mentioned as a possible VP for the Democrats. Would the die-hard whites and feminists who would turn their backs on the Democratic party rather than voting for Obama rally around another capable white woman? Or is Hillary their sine qua non candidate (après elle, c'est le néant) ? And what about the VP choice for the Republicans? What if McCain convinces Condoleezza Rice to accept the nomination? How would that choice affect the black vote and the feminist vote in the general election?

A lot of interesting questions that truly should be explored. There is nothing inevitable about the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, even as we are reminded on this day of the assassination of Robert Kennedy on June 5, 1968.

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:49 am

[quote]I have to allow you to gloat into having 20/20 vision into the future that Obama would win the democratic candidature[/quote]
Tidodo, thank you for the credit you have handed me, but unfortunately I do not deserve it. Right here on Ann Pale, I have written a lot about the candidacy of Obama and others, but not once did I predict that Obama would win the nomination. I have written about his merits. I have fiercely defended his right to run for President and not cave in to the pressure of die-hard Hillary supporters who urged him to wait 'for his time' (a woman first, then a black) or for the undetermined time when America would be ready for a black to become President [which might NEVER happen, at least not in our lifetimes, if no one aggressively offered America that choice]. I defended Obama's right to run so vigorously that almost no one would believe that I only became pro-Obama on the day that I heard him deliver his major speech on race. That was the event that truly convinced me that Obama was the right choice for America at this time.

What about Obama's liberalism? To me, it's nearly indistinguishable from Hillary's. In terms of their shared liberalism, it's Hillary's vote for the war in Iraq from the beginning that set her apart in a bad light, as far as I am concerned. I strongly disapprove of both of them for having voted to waste the country's resources on a stupid wall on the U.S.-Mexican border. I strongly disapprove of the entire Democratic Party (with just a few exceptions) for not having had the courage to firmly stand up against the Bush-Cheney's War on Iraq, disguised deceptively as a war on terror. And as far as their liberalism is concerned, there is much of it that is objectionable, as will be discussed in detail in another article that I will later post on this board.

Once again, please re-read my posts if you are so inclined. I cannot take credit for predictions that I never made in the first place. I argued that Obama had the right to run, that he even could win, but not that he would win.

Unbelievably perhaps, I feel much surer about his chances in the general election, in spite of that vaunted "racist" vote. Call me an optimist, if you will, but only give me credit when I deserve it.

Dr Roger Malebranche

Post by Dr Roger Malebranche » Thu Jun 05, 2008 10:50 am

I will try to be brief.

1) I would not call Colin Powell an uncle Tom. This is disrespectful and this appellation does not fit the man. If a Haitian had reached that level of power, Haitians would have been crowing. Same as Ms Rice. Those 2 are articulated, intelligent American Blacks, and while disagreeing with their boss I have great respect for them. It is much better for Blacks to have members of the tribe close to the power seat. The only Black in power that I loathe and despise is the one on the Supreme Court. I refuse to mention his or even better, its name.

2) Hillary would make a good vice president. She is though and knows the ropes. As for Bill he is damaged goods. I think Hillary kept him around for the Democratic run. She was running on Bill's fuel. Now that she has lost she does not need him anymore and she will keep him at arm's length. I don't think Bill will show his face too much around.

3) I hope all the "annpale'ers" do their homework. It is important to realize that Mr Obama's victory is the death's knell for the old "WHITE MEN ONLY NEED APPLY", the shot heard around the world. It is a victory for all American children, may they be Black, Hispanic, Asian, Male, Female, Muslim, Jewish etc... They will realize that the gate is open and they TOO can aspire to the ultimate prize. And I expect ANNPALE'ERS to speak to all those groups and enlist their support for the ultimate push. I have heard that many Haitians in Miami don't want Obama. Please work on them to change.

And remember, this is a big victory for Blacks all over the world. Blacks are getting respect through Mr Obama. We were starting to get respect with the high visibility of Ms Rice and Mr Powell. Please let's stop calling them names. They have done a good job as AMERICAN HUMANS. Or would we rather have a plethora of buffoons like the ever present Reverends? Let's go forward. Let's all concentrate on the task at hands: OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT. I think Hillary will be an asset.

Leoneljb
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:29 pm

Post by Leoneljb » Thu Jun 05, 2008 6:40 pm

I agree Doc. I called them that name before until my Wife said the same thing to me. Actually, Colin Powell is showing us his ideologies recently...
I apologize to calling them "Uncle Tom". I can not expect everyone to be like me with same ideology.
L

Tidodo
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:07 am

Post by Tidodo » Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:11 am

[quote]I apologize to calling them "Uncle Tom". [/quote]

Great characters have no problem with their humanity.

[quote]I would not call Colin Powell an uncle Tom. This is disrespectful and this appellation does not fit the man. If a Haitian had reached that level of power, Haitians would have been crowing.[/quote]

It is difficult for many people to sort out good from bad in their enemies' characters, and give them credit for the good. Good call, Doc!

[quote]Hillary would make a good vice president. She is though and knows the ropes. As for Bill he is damaged goods...[/quote]

I am not that sure of this, Doc. Many people, like me, supported Hillary because of Bill's possible future presence in the White House. The politicians can say whatever they want about his political influence, but his mind and experience have not been damaged.

I want to caution many on this forum about not falling in the trap set by the republicans. In my opinion, their greatest fear now is a slam dunk ticket of a combined team of Obama and Hillary. That is why they are tryiing to capitalize on Hillary's tough stance with Obama on Tuesday night by calling it a reason why Obama should not cave in to her pressure. These are the same republicans who told us that Obama's remarks in California does not identify him with the average american and that americans like to elect people they consider their own. You could sense the racial undertone in those remarks.

With Hillary on the ticket, it will be very difficult for them to make that argument. Even as a VP, it will be a first for a female candidate. Her constituency would have no problem rallying behind both of them. Besides, you are all smart enough to understand that when we are divided we are more vulnerable. So, let's put our emotions aside and let our brain take over in this matter.

Hillary and Obama complement each other when it comes to getting the vote in November. Alone, each one of them is vulnerable. If you pay a lot of attention to the pundits in the media, you should notice that the republicans - with Guy being the exception - are the strongest ones making an argument against Hillary on the ticket. They were the first ones, during Bill's term, to try to make her a "damaged good." Knowing what they have done to her, they warned us at the beginning of the primaries that she is not electable because her negatives are too high. They thought that Obama was easier to beat, but they are finding out now they were wrong, but they have to continue with the strategy. Having split the democratic party, they are now trying a last ditch effort to prevent them from UNITING - pay attention to how often you will hear the word UNITY between now and November from the democratic leadership. They understand the opposition's strategy!

Leoneljb
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:29 pm

Post by Leoneljb » Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:32 pm

Great one Tidodo, I also believe that Bill is not "Damaged good". I believe that sometimes People are not thinking that Obama won a Primary. The big One where everyone will be involved is November 08.
Obama and Hillary motivated so many voters and, it will be a big mistake not to keep these voters.
Remember, Hillary got the big States like New York and California. It's a big deal!
Leonel

Tidodo
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:07 am

Post by Tidodo » Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:20 pm

Leonel,

I just watched the McLaughlin group. There was unanimity on the panel that Obama will not pick Hillary, except for Jonh McLaughlin's "too close to call." I can't remember anytime there was unanimity on something on this panel and they were wrong. Conclusion, he will not pick her and help with her dream of becoming president, which is the dream of most women in America, particularly white. Her presidency to them would mean respect for women. Here goes the women vote in November! Welcome President McCain! I hope Obama knows what he is doing!

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:41 am

[quote]if now he has to adopt Hillary as VP, he might as well change his name to Tom Jackson and declare that he would rather see Hillary run as president and he will be happy to be her humble servant - like Colin 'Uncle Tom' Powell was mighty happy to serve Bush.[/quote]
The phrasing is vintage Jafrikayiti. I would have phrased it much differently and would also avoid referring to Colin Powell as 'Uncle Tom' (only because such negative appellations are not helpful to anyone, in my view). In fact, before Jaf ever used it (multiple times on this forum), I had already denounced this particular name calling after I first saw it in print form from no one less than the much admired civil rights activist Harry Belafonte, who was a close friend and ally to Martin Luther King all throughout the civil rights movement and up to the day of MLK's assassination. Harry Belafonte refused to mince his words and called fellow Jamaican "Colin Powell" for what he was to his eyes: an Uncle Tom. Then and now, I disagreed with Belafonte, but certainly not out of particular deference for Powell [who got a free pass from society at large for his dismissive brush off of Tom Glen's letter that would have (with any diligence at all from Powell!) exposed to the world the horrible My Lai Massacre in Vietnam early in 1968 rather than late in 1969.] I just happen to think that it is strategically more useful to expose in detail someone's misdeeds than to call him names, a habit that unproductively rallies other (generally unsuspecting) people to the defense of the wrongdoer.

Aside from that caveat about Jafrikayiti's specific choice of words, I believe that he expresses closely my own sentiments on the matter. For quite some time, major polls in the U.S. considered Colin Powell the most respected public figure in America. Unlike the mixed-race Obama, Colin (the Negro) was virtually seen by all not as Black but the Ultimate Mythical Supra-Racial American Hero prototype. For a while, nobody even knew for sure whether he was Democrat or Republican. It did not seem to matter. Both parties would have been extremely happy to claim him. He was elevated to not only to Joint Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces (second only to the President of the United States in the command of the mightiest Army in the whole world) but also as five-star general (a position few military men have achieved in American History). Prestige? No one had more prestige than Secretary of State Colin Powell. No one in the American Administration was more respected throughout the World, until... until... until George W. Bush made mincemeat out of him, forcing him to pathetically and irrevocably humiliate himself with a pack of lies and a shameful powerpoint presentation in front of the United Nations.

If one person in the world did not fail to see Colin Powell as a "too proud" negro that needed to be tamed, it surely must have been George W. Bush. One of his celebrated biographers clearly showed that Bush was intent on taming and humiliating Powell from the start of his administration, as when he deliberately locked the door on him at the start of a Cabinet meeting, when Powell showed up a couple of minutes late. Bush broke out laughing when Powell began to frantically knock on the door. Some will go to the extent of seeing virtue in this, as the President somehow needed to instill in his 5-star general and virtual world's statesman a better sense of timeliness. it's a wonder that the General had not learned this until then. So Bush had to humiliate him in the presence of his entire cabinet, and that was only a preview of what lay in store for this once proud man.

Well before Barack Obama, Colin Powell could have run for President and contemplated far better odds, for a black person than any other black man or woman today. Now he has been "reduced to size". As Jafrikayiti points out, some would expect Barack Obama to similarly efface himself to promote a woman who would, given any self-advance opportunity, reduce Obama to size. When in the entire History of the Two-Party system had it become fashionable to refer to one's leading primary opponent of the same party as "less ready" to be Commander-in-Chief than the chief candidate of the other party? Had Barack Obama committed this "gaffe", that would have been unforgivable!! He would have been spat upon by all and would have lost the nomination of his party. But since this remarkable put-down was inflicted by Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign and ultimately herself (since she did not repudiate the remark and even offered other statements to support that charge), then this becomes a "legitimate" campaign tactic. No one would force Hillary Clinton to apologize. Better yet, they would not mind putting her and her once-and-would-be-president-again husband in a position to claim all credits for positive accomplishments and assign all blame to Obama later when anything goes wrong. Never mind the fact that Barack Obama has not been an accidental candidate, never mind that the fact that he has come from way behind (in double-digits) and clearly outpaced, outclassed, outsmarted his once-just-waiting-for-the-crown opponent. Nevertheless, we are told, he should still and in a hurry defer to the overarching ambition of the Clintons who would (no matter what happens today) have not hesitated a second to destroy the man, who came from nowhere to destroy their dream of going back to the White House.

I am no teary-eyed liberal, I am simply an advocate of social justice. I also do not cheer on the celebrated careers of Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Clarence Thomas (sorry, Roger, if I used the name that you had rather keep unnamed). But, in Obama, I see reason to cheer not only because he is the first black person to have achieved so much and so fast politically, but also because he has sent some very positive messages of cooperation to the rest of the world (even taking into account his obligatory harsh comments on Castro, Chavez, and absolute pledge of support to Israel, however unfair its policies might be). Whereas Hillary Clinton had to display her testicular fortitude by threatening to obliterate Iran should it attack Israel, Obama has chosen the more courageous path to lead us into negotiations before any thought of pushing on the nuclear button.

I would clearly be disappointed if the panel appointed by Obama to search for the most desirable Vice-Presidential candidate should recommend Hillary Clinton anywhere near the top of their list. Hillary Clinton clearly does not deserve that position. And she is clearly a very dangerous woman, who will stop at nothing, even destroying Obama, to achieve her own presidential ambitions. But, if Obama chooses her, I will not begrudge his choice or wonder if he has lost all of his marbles. He has outsmarted everyone else so far. Therefore he may prove once yet his ability to outsmart the Piranha when putting his fingers in the fish bowl.

jafrikayiti
Posts: 218
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:16 pm

Post by jafrikayiti » Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:55 am

I am still awaiting Mrs. Clinton's speech. The fact that she is late for this important speech should tell us how enthusiastic she is indeed to support the Democratic Party's nominee.

Barack Obama has already proven that he is a very intelligent man and a clever politician who understands all too well what makes America tick. So, I would not be surprised if he makes one more concession in order to become the first visibly non-"white" President of America.

Just this week-end Harry Belafonte was in Montreal speaking about the great significance of Obama's emergence on the U.S. political scene. This veteran of the Civil Rights movement reiterated that Africans who consider it sufficient to have "black faces" in positions of "power" are selling themselves cheap. It is sad to see that fools like Colin Powell who accepted happily to do all the dirty and CRIMINAL jobs for America, can be considered as "models" for our people. Powell has played this despicable role from the Vietnam Massacres to IRAQ and Haiti. The term "Uncle Tom" is actually too soft to describe Powell. As discussed before on this forum, Uncle Tom was a fictional character in Beecher-Stowe's novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin". From what I remember off hand, Tom was a subservient African who was happy to stay "in his assigned place" as a negro but, although his shameful behaviour might have caused damage to his people, he did not do so with malice and did not actively engage in criminal activity. Colin Powell on the other hand does have the blood of millions of innocent black, yellow, brown and white people on his hands.

My hope is that Barack Obama will not be just a so-called "black face" in the White House but a human being whose vision of the world and ACTION are truly VASTLY different that that of the criminal class that have ruled the world over the past decades.

The fact that he has had to make so many concessions on his way to the White House should tell us that the real challenge resides not on the shoulders of one man, Barack Obama, but also on the American people as a whole. The progressive forces of all color and creed who dare dream of a different America and a different world. If the old Washington sharks like the Clintons have their way, we will be bitterly disappointed.

I pray the Americans will stop watching CNN and begin to organize themselves, seize the opportunity presented by Obama to take a different course. It is not given, but I do believe they can.

Okay, Clinton has finally arrived...the spin is on...

m ap suiv espektak...

Jaf

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Sat Jun 07, 2008 2:46 pm

[quote]The term "Uncle Tom" is actually too soft to describe Powell. As discussed before on this forum, Uncle Tom was a fictional character in Beecher-Stowe's novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin". From what I remember off hand, Tom was a subservient African who was happy to stay "in his assigned place" as a negro but, although his shameful behaviour might have caused damage to his people, he did not do so with malice and did not actively engage in criminal activity.[/quote]
All the more reason, Jafrikayiti, to refrain from using the term in a fashion that distracts from its literary and historical meaning. You understand the meaning and you know that it does not fit. So what is left, when you misuse this obviously degrading term, is simply the insult and your own indignation, but not an enlightening of the subject's faults so others may come to comprehend them. In fact, beware when you do use it, you rally to your viewpoint only those who are already convinced of it, while others simply stop at the insult and look no further.

"Uncle Tom" is an attitude and the vast majority of us have been 'Uncle Toms' in that sense at one point or other in our lives, even if we have done it just to be able to feed our growing families. As contemptuous as you might see it, 'Uncle Tom' is also a stage in our total emancipation. I do not advocate Uncletomism. Just the opposite. But to use it simply as a term of degradation leaves all of us more vulnerable than it makes us stronger. It condemns all of us to spitting shame for the times that we were not rebellious enough, for the times when we were not conscious enough to stand up for our rights, for the times that we subordinated our pride to the instinct of maximizing our chances for survival. It applies to all of us, our parents, our grandparents, ourselves, and our children. So I do believe that there are more constructive ways to educate us to what is right and what is wrong in our common battle than to target only those who achieve prominence (but not in the way that we would have hoped) with invectives. In doing so, you will be missing some real opportunities to educate others as I know you wish.

[quote]Powell has played this despicable role from the Vietnam Massacres to IRAQ and Haiti.[/quote]
Be more specific, Jaf, because one might read this and infer for instance that Powell was somewhat responsible for Vietnam and Iraq massacres (I am leaving Haiti out of the equation at this time). Let's be clear about this. Colin Powell was nowhere near Vietnam at the time of My Lai massacre. But he was charged later to investigate a letter about the massacre that was written by an eyewitness, Tom Glen. Powell understood that his superiors at the time were not interested in the truth, so he quickly dismissed the letter without any follow-up investigation. In other words, he participated in the cover-up. The truth of the My Lai massacre would come out a year and a half later. Many years later, Colin Powell also understood that his president, George W. Bush, was absolutely not interested in the truth. Colin had previously expressed his preference for continued negotiations. George basically said "the hell with that! I just want you to cook up some facts and make a god damned presentation to the U.N. (those bastards) effective enough to get them to vote and give a certain veneer of legitimacy to our criminal intent. Well, Colin obliged to his everlasting shame, presenting as facts a bunch of poorly assembled forgeries. He would have kept or enhanced his dignity if he had resigned at that point. But the fact of the matter is that Colin is not directly responsible (as far as I know) for massacres in Vietnam or Iraq, which would have happened regardless of his positions, because as far as George Bush and Dick Cheney were concerned, the hell with anyone who would stand in their way. These were not Colin Powell's wars. If you understand well the chain of command in the U.S. Armed Forces, that is directly and firmly under the control of the White House (that is why there has never been a coup d'etat in the history of the United States), then you should not be in a hurry to criminalize all those who merely occupy secondary positions (prestigious puppets, they are) and truly cannot oppose the orders of the madmen who lead them.

[quote]Colin Powell on the other hand does have the blood of millions of innocent black, yellow, brown and white people on his hands.[/quote]
That is clearly an exaggeration, Jaf. I will not go further.

I never thought that anyone would put me in a position to defend Colin Powell. As I said, the man disgraced himself and he knows it. Lately, he has offered some regrets in that regards, considering his presentation at the U.N. in very poor judgment. He now knows that he would have been far better off tending his resignation rather than participating in the folly of the century. But let's not exaggerate the personal role of Colin Powell. He was a means to the end, not the true architect of the Vietnam, Gulf, and Iraqi wars.

jafrikayiti
Posts: 218
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:16 pm

Post by jafrikayiti » Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:40 pm

Hi Guy,

I accept your point about the use of the term "Uncle Tom", especially in a context when little elaboration is offered. However, I think you underplay too much the active role Colin Powell played in the Vietnam War. From what I have read, he was not only involved in the cover up of My Lai but was on the ground and took an active part in other massacres of civilians and has written lame justifications for such massacres. See for instance:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/colin3.html

a couple of quotes:

[quote]In 1963, Capt. Colin Powell was one of those advisers, serving a first tour with a South Vietnamese army unit. Powell's detachment sought to discourage support for the Viet Cong by torching villages throughout the A Shau Valley. While other U.S. advisers protested this countrywide strategy as brutal and counter-productive, Powell defended the "drain-the-sea" approach then -- and continued that defense in his 1995 memoirs, My American Journey. (See The Consortium, July 8)

After his first one-year tour and a series of successful training assignments in the United States, Maj. Powell returned for his second Vietnam tour on July 27, 1968. This time, he was no longer a junior officer slogging through the jungle, but an up-and-coming staff officer assigned to the Americal division.[/quote]

Here is another interesting quote:
[quote]After mentioning the My Lai massacre in My American Journey, Powell penned a partial justification of the Americal's brutality. In a chilling passage, Powell explained the routine practice of murdering unarmed male Vietnamese.

"I recall a phrase we used in the field, MAM, for military-age male," Powell wrote. "If a helo spotted a peasant in black pajamas who looked remotely suspicious, a possible MAM, the pilot would circle and fire in front of him. If he moved, his movement was judged evidence of hostile intent, and the next burst was not in front, but at him. Brutal? Maybe so. But an able battalion commander with whom I had served at Gelnhausen (West Germany), Lt. Col. Walter Pritchard, was killed by enemy sniper fire while observing MAMs from a helicopter. And Pritchard was only one of many. The kill-or-be-killed nature of combat tends to dull fine perceptions of right and wrong." [/quote]

As far as Iraq is concerned, I do not see Powell as an unwilling participant. Ditto for the 2004 coup in Haiti. Whereas I can accept and understand the survival skills of our ancestors during the times of racial slavery, Jim crow and even to this day, for those who are vulnerable members of society, I cannot see Powell as anything but a man of little character who refused to use his position privilege to stand for right rather than might. He did it consistently and shamelessly.

I apologize for spending so much time on such a tangential subject.

Now that Hillary's speech is out there, what is the prognostic? Will the Democrats organize themselves early enough not to let the Republicans trick the elections a third consecutive time?

What is the next concession Obama will be forced to make?

Jaf

Dr Roger Malebranche

Post by Dr Roger Malebranche » Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:57 pm

Hi Guy, Hi Jaf, Tidodo, Leonel and other assorted Haitian reformers.
This is ROGER, the older and, I hope, WISER pundit.
No Jaf, I am not selling myself cheap ( to see a black face in power )...
When I came to this country in 1961 I cringed the first time I saw Blacks on TV or in the movies. Remember Fetchit, the lady in Gone with the wind, the assorted Black buffoons rolling their eyes and uttering silly uncomprehensible words. You probably don't. You are too young. Like you, ( being a proud Haitian ), I was used to clamor from my pulpit : " How could they do that, demean my Black race ? They should have died of starvation before lowering themselves to such levels of shame ". Of course I had never been subjected to the horrible plight of the American Blacks of the 30s, 40s, 50s, and it was easy for me to PONTIFICATE about what other Blacks would do, should do , needed to do or whatever. The hot blood has since cooled and I refuse to criticize anyone, except at times Guy, unless and until I have walked a mile in his or her shoes. Those Blacks did what they HAD TO DO. Still do.
I don't call anyone Uncle Tom ANYMORE. I have read the book and it is a reflexion of the times it was written in. Today there is a derogatory connection to it. I would not want to be called an UT so I don't call anyone that name, however I may feel about them. But again I cannot blame the impetuosity of youth. AAHH... Sweet Bird of youth !
It seems TO ME that some Blacks get an easy pass, as long as they can invoke white slight, white prejudices, white devils and exploiters etc... I am looking at Zimbabwe's Mugabe and I don't see any ANN PALEERS raising the issues of Black crime, Black exploitation, Black depotism and tyranny, the BLACKS on BLACKS destruction. As Haitians we pile scorn upon Blacks who work through the system, patiently, one step at the time... and we should not. 40 years ago we had Fetchit on American TV and movies. Today we have Obama. Quite a step forward. Blacks could have faced the American racist system "mano a mano" 40 years ago and perished doing it. If so, I don't think Haitians would be living the good life in the USA today and I am certain we would not have an Obama as potential president.
In other words let's drop the heated rhetoric, let's give time and the new generations a chance. Let stop demonizing fellow Blacks who took a different pathway ( I draw the line at Clarence Thomas ). I don't think an OBAMA/CLINTON ticket would be bad. Matter of fact a year ago a CLINTON/OBAMA ticket sounded darn good to most of us. Let's not be too heavy with the criticism. Life for Blacks is better than it was when I arrived here 48 years ago and I know it will take a huge leap upwards if we manage to work intelligently through the system and get our MAN elected PRESIDENT of the USA. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
My respect, love, commiseration to everyone with a different and wrong opinion.
Roger.

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Sat Jun 07, 2008 7:26 pm

Jaf, I am glad we came to an agreement (at least a partial one) on the wisdom of restraining ourselves from calling other people Uncle Tom. Those are just words anyhow, they are hurtful and they are meant to hurt. I am much more interested in educating others to the criminal misdeeds of some of the models that they cherished. Such exposes are a lot more useful than invectives. Once explanations are given, they sink in and may provoke new more in-depth evaluations instead of the awe some of us feel for others simply because they have attained a high level position, without looking for how they got there.

By the way, I never meant to imply that Colin Powell was an unwilling participant in Vietnam and Iraq (His repeated involvements in Haiti matters deserve a separate treatment, in a new topic). He was not "unwilling". I still think that you overstated his direct responsibility in the massacres of "millions" of people. In fact, I am sure that the vast majority of the people you mentioned would have died without Powell ever joining the Army, simply because a President of the United States wanted it just so. So maybe I underplayed... but you overstated.

As for you, Roger, I don't mind at all your criticisms and I have not responded to them. In my own mind, I am the furthest thing from the dictators that you have repeatedly compared me to. But that's okay. Do m laj pas'on laye. I have always done and will continue to do the best I can, with integrity, and will always respond with a strong voice. I know that I will never please everybody. Many would wish me not to come out so strong when I present my opinions, but honestly I will not do it any other way. If this causes other people to stay away and not state their own opinions, that's unfortunate but that is the bridge I am not willing to cross. I write spontaneously and I am not going to weigh myself down with the added burden of mellowing my voice. What you see is what you get, even if you (mistakenly) see me as a dictator. I hate to put it that way, but I really do not care... at all. Hopefully my true character will show through my writings if you follow them. But the conclusions will remain yours, and I will submit gracefully to whatever you think of me.

Also, Roger, the word has changed since the sixties. We have evolved in all sorts of ways. We must remain vigilant and must always demand better treatment by the media. In spite of all the progress that you have witnessed in your lifetime, it is still not equal. It is still not even. At the highest level, even in our discussions, you can see that Obama is not given the same presumptions of political intelligence as other candidates. Everybody wants to box him in. That is simply not right. We shall continue to fight for equal respect and equal justice, no matter how much progress appears to have been made.

Zanfanginen

Post by Zanfanginen » Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:05 am

No way!! Obama should pick someone that could help him to get the Latinos, Women and the blue collar vote at the presidential elections. Bill Richardson would be a great candidate.

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:32 am

[quote]Understanding history will let you know why the check, that was hand delivered on August 28, 1963 before most of you and I were born, will be cashed in our presence on August 28, 2008 in Denver.[/quote]
Senou, first of all, you make me feel quite old, but you may be right: I was born well before August 28, 1963. More importantly, the check that Martin Luther King talked about, he described it himself as a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The fact that Barack Obama will officially become the Democratic Party's nominee and candidate for the Presidency of the United States is, as far as we are concerned, another promissory note. Still another one may be delivered on January 20, 2009. Though these are significant turns of events in American History, they are still largely symbolic. Let's not confuse the extraordinary achievements of one man with all the social and economic aspirations of millions and millions of people. The check will still be there to be cashed in someday for all who have been denied its benefits.

Post Reply