The following piece was produced by HuffPost's OffTheBus, and also appears on the author's blog,Witness L.A..
Why are so many progressives unhappy with the thought of Hillary Clinton becoming the Democratic nominee? Here's a perfect case in point:
This past weekend all the Democratic presidential wannabes spoke at what is known as the Iowa Brown & Black Forum. (The Republican wannabes were also invited but they declined.)
The candidates were asked all the usual questions and, for the most part, gave all the expected answers. But on one issue in particular Hillary differed markedly from her colleagues--and that had to do with the recent recommendation by the federal sentencing commission that people caught with crack cocaine should have sentences more in line with those for powder cocaine. This was an issue of interest to the forum because powder tends to be a drug favored by those whiter and wealthier than those who favor crack.
When asked about her own policy, Clinton said she agreed with the feds' recommendation for equalizing the sentences, but she opposed making the sentencing changes retroactive.
"I have problems with retroactivity," she said. "It's something a lot of communities will be concerned about as well." Obama, Edwards, Richarson, Dodd, Kucinich said they were in favor of the sentencing change being applied to those already serving time.
Now before we get to the reality of how such a sentencing change would play out, let's parse what Clinton said: Although she agrees that disproportionate punishments for crack versus cocaine are wrong for the future, she doesn't feel that past disproportionate punishments are wrong.
To show this POV for the whacked logic that it is, let's use an absurd example. Imagine that, as a country, we used to lock people up for twenty years for jaywalking. But then we finally came to our senses and realized that a 20-year jolt for crossing the street against the light was awfully harsh. So, we changed the sentencing structure, and dropped jaywalking back to a traffic citation, where it belongs. But using Clinton's present logic, all those poor jaywalkers who are, say, only eighteen months into a 20-year sentence are just going to have hang in with whole two decades of hard time.
Why is Clinton taking a stand that goes against basic fairness and logic?
Because evidently her pollsters and handlers have told her that Rudy Giuliani will attack her if she goes for retroactivity. "It will release 20,000 felons on the street!" (Actually, it won't. But we'll get to all that in a minute.)
Here's what Politco reported on the subject:
"Clinton's pollster, Mark Penn, pointed out that the Republican front-runner has already signaled that he will attack Democrats on releasing people convicted of drug crimes....."
"'Rudy Giuliani is already going after the issue," Penn said. "He's already starting to attack Democrats, claiming it will release 20,000 convicted drug dealers.'"
Now about those 20,000 felons about to flood our neighborhoods, here's the deal: People would NOT be automatically be released. They'd have to go before a court and argue that they were fit to be freed, and a judge would decide whether or not a release was warranted.
In an attempt to clear up the misconception advanced by Clinton and Giuliani (and perpetuated by the media) the ACLU sent out a press release on Monday. It's worth reading in its entirety, but ACLU Legislative Counsel Jesselyn McCurdy gets to the bottom line:
"The [Sentencing Commission] changed the crack cocaine sentencing guidelines last month because the commission realized they were unfair. It makes no sense to call a law unjust and in the same breath say it should still apply. Retroactivity doesn't mean prisoners will be released en masse; it means the mistakes in sentencing that have gone unchecked for decades will be corrected."
Right. As an attorney and as a senator, Hilary Clinton should know that. If she doesn't, shame on her. If she knows and is making her choice simply based on craven political motives, she doesn't deserve to be president.
Loading comments… 
1. Hilary Clinton is frightenin
2. Re: release from Federal prison for revised sentencing
1.) It infers that the ECONOMY WILL NOT GET BETTER FOR THE POOR IN AMERICA FROM THIS POINT...
2.) It infers that the SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM NOW IN PLACE WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE IN THE FUTURE- 20, 30 years or so...
3.) It infers that CORPORATIO
4.) It infers that CORPORATIO
5.) It infers that LIVING WAGE JOBS WILL DECREASE IN THE FUTURE AND PERSONAL 'ACCOUNT' WILL BE A TOKEN OF WHAT THE AMERICAN WORKER WILL NEED FOR EDUCATING THEIR CHILDREN, FOR PROVIDING THEIR OWN HEALTHCARE
inmate. What a compassion
Kucinich is the only one with true compassion for the average American as his life story shows.Ther
the welfare to work bill never funding the mothers for
proper education and never funding the children for
proper child care and the 1994 clinton crime bill that
took away pell grants which lead from a 30% recidivism
rate to a 70% rate cost americans dearly as prisons
were privatized and children were allowed to go wild
due to mothers having to work two jobs at micky D's
and now we pay 100k a yr to support these children in
jails as bill never reduced crack cocaine which puts
them in jail longer and thusly we pay to keep them
there which has caused us all to be further in debt
and more kids killing others as they see no jobs
because their mothers never got educated and could be
examples to them.
yea they were great yrs but turned to hell very fast
after Slick willy got out and then he goes to a bunch
of balck churches and gets seen as the black president
NOT and now we all suffer and blame bush for slick
willys term and actions and inactions.
yeaa it was great but for who and for how long ???
Here is what she did during her time with the
www.childr
what she may have done with walmart.
http://www
2007 Cradle to Prison Pipeline®
Crisis in America National Summit
September 25 - 26, 2007
Howard University
Washington
http://72.
In 1997, Edelman criticized President Clinton for his
welfare reform package by warning it could lead to
record numbers of uninsured children, increased child
abuse, and rising firearms deaths. The CDF's "The
State of America's Children Yearbook 1997" criticized
the package and warned that "if America does not stand
up now for its children, it will not stand strong in
the new millennium