Ron Dellums Blesses Hillary Clinton

It was a pretty straightforward political deal. The aspiring presidential candidate promised the former congressman that, if elected, she would appoint him as head of a key national policy committee. And in return, the former congressman, now the mayor of a major Democratic city, endorsed the candidate. No surprise, either, that the candidate in question was Hillary Clinton.

What was surprising, and deeply disappointing to many of his supporters and admirers, is that the congressman-turned-mayor was none other than legendary anti-war stalwart Ron Dellums.

Now the mayor of Oakland, a west coast Democratic stronghold, Dellums gave his blessing to Clinton during a hastily convened public appearance by the two at Laney College. Dellums said he decided to back Clinton "because of substance, not symbolism. She has spoken brilliantly and powerfully to the issues that are of importance to Oakland and all of urban America: crime and violence, affordable housing, global warming, and universal access to health care."

But his green lighting of Hillary, nevertheless, brimmed with symbolism - albeit unwittingly. Until he retired a decade ago, Dellums spent 27 years in Congress, serving as the undisputed most progressive member of the Democratic caucus. He was originally elected in an anti-Vietnam war groundswell and was consistently counted on to be the most reliable voice against excessive militarism.

All this making his endorsement of the most hawkish of the three major Democratic candidates more than befuddling to his legions of admirers. Off The Bus correspondent Mayhill Fowler details the political payback involved:

"First of all, the aging lion has been given the Clinton Campaign's Urban Policy Committee--translation--more federal tax dollars for Oakland should Clinton take the White House. Specifically, Clinton pledged to Dellums that she would expand mentoring and internship programs, programs that reintegrate convicts into society and alternative energy jobs programs. That's a lot of programs--does that mean a lot of earmarks? And in the language of the day, all programs will be "public-private partnerships," of course. More importantly for Dellums, whose popularity as Oakland's mayor has been declining, is the opportunity to burnish his waning political career by hitching it to a rising star."

Indeed, less than a year ago Dellums took over the mayor's chair of his crime-ridden city promising a more progressive reign than that of outgoing mayor (and now California Attorney General) Jerry Brown. Oakland is the kind of place where Greens frequently outpoll Republicans and while Brown is considered a solid liberal in the rest of the state, he became reviled by many of his original boosters for allegedly becoming too centrist. Dellums might have just taken a sharp right turn down that same path.

Comments

[nixau]

I think Dean would have lost by a larger margin than Kerry. Nobody here in Colorado is sporting Hillary bumper stickers, but they just haven't come out of the closet yet. I don't know if it's true that "Hillary promised" to appoint Dellums but any thing she has done or will do that can be cast in a political light pales by comparison to the posturing of Bush and Giuliani. Maybe centrist is the way to go, there's nothing to say that the knee jerking of the far left is any more viable than the intransigence of the right. I think Bill Clinton was a good president, especially by comparison, and apparently most Americans agree with me.

[Zhonni]

I am not here to fight an old fight but I sincerely believe that Dean would have won. Simply because he was against the dumb war.

He might have not won the popular vote but he would have definately won the electoral vote.

He would have energized more peole. I believe there are far more Democrats than there are Republicans.

Repulblicans hijacked the Church for political reasons and it worked. People would not forget to vote if their Pastor told them to go vote for "Man O' god Bush".

That is not to say if one was not told by a Pastor that one would forget to vote. Believe me people are tired of the politics of today and if we can nominate a person like Obama he would bring this people in. People would turn out in masses and I don't have any doubts about that.

[Zhonni]

This is DESPICABLE! BUYING ENDORSEMENTS should be ILLEGAL.

I guess all the candidates can go out and promise cabinet position to people, whether or not they mean it, just to get endorsements.

[BobC46]

Terrorists endorsing Hillary:

"Abu Hamed, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades in the northern Gaza Strip, explained in "Schmoozing" Clinton's repeated calls for a withdrawal from Iraq "proves that important leaders are understanding the situation differently and are understanding the price and the consequences of the American policy in Iraq and in the world."
"The Iraqi resistance is succeeding," stated Hamed. "Hillary and the Democrats call for withdrawal. Her popularity shows that the resistance is winning and that the occupation is losing. We just hope that she will go until the end and change the American policy, which is based on oppressing poor and innocent people."

The Brigades, together with the Islamic Jihad terrorist group, took responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past three years. The Brigades also has carried out hundreds of recent shootings and rocket attacks.

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by Clinton's calls for an eventual withdrawal from Iraq.

"It is clear that it is the resistance operations of the mujahideen that has brought about these calls for withdrawal," boasted Abu Ayman.

Nasser Abu Aziz, the West Bank deputy commander of the Al Aqsa Brigades, declared it is "very good" there are "voices like Hillary and others who are now attacking the Iraq invasion."

In "Schmoozing," every terrorist leader out of dozens interviewed stated they hope a Democrat becomes president in 2008. Some terror leaders explained their endorsement of Clinton is not necessarily at the expense of other Democratic presidential candidates, whose policies are not as well known to them...."

[msfiskvletterman]

10/7/07
11:26pm
Burlington, VT

Yeah. It's depressing.

[HereticalPolemicisit]

The Dems must decide whether they are the party of OPPORTUNITY or OPPORTUNISM. Hillary and "Billaryism" tend toward the latter. That latter political ethic of opportunism panders and agitates with out giving the substantive results it coyly promises and postures for. From the troops in Iraq until 2013 to $5000 check for every child's health care-both provide a deluding expectation for a political self-serving ends.

Patronage and the Entitlements of tokenism for the most in need versus Committement and Sacrifice for ALL.

The use of patronage and entitlements to seduce and buy votes of those in need of the opprotunity for skills, not degrading hand-outs, is the Dems version of dehumanization of the culture and society. The appeal to the "what's in it for ME", rather than what is best for us all in shared equity doesnot pull the populace together in a shared struggle of individual challenge and self-development. It creates and perpetuates civil antagonisms that produce hollow and superficial policies and programs which benefit the hucksters and promoters rather than provide a solution for those in need.


Speaking of such...


And never mind that Dellums sold-out Shirley Chisolm in 1972 to give California to McGovern. He symbolizes the image challenge of the Democrats.

Hillary with her 2008 version of Billaryism is the primary tactician of this. Edwards and Obama lead with the intangible of economic justice being the father of social injustice. Hillary with her Billaryism and the political sycophants who sign up for patronage and entitlements for those who deserve better than another form of psuedo-paternalism that enables cultural dependency that is the father of political disenfranchisment. The Democratic Party doesn't need to be known as the enablers of patroniziing entitlements that degrades and degenerates its recipients.

[whizkid]

Have always liked Dellums though he was very much the radical.

Why ask about black political heroes?
You may care about the issue but...
Who will actually do the job?
Who will have the clout?
So far it's LBJ & Bill.

[14justice]

What a poignant denouement....

[BUSHsurvivor]

I thought this was an interesting article from my local paper...

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071004/NEWS05/710040378

Current Senators running for the White House and how many votes they have missed since January 8, 2007.

Of 357 votes.....

Clinton missed 32.
Obama missed 90.
McCain missed 182.
Dodd missed 97.
Biden missed 105.
Brownback missed 131.

[ECJLA]

Oh how the mighty have fallen, into line.

First George McGovern, now Ron Dellums. And only days after mistress Hillary's war-mongering vote on the Iran resolution, part of an orchestrated re-run of the run-up to the Iraq war. If endorsements reflected political affinity, each would have endorsed either Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel.

This is all part of a strong-arm lockdown operation against the left-liberal (what Howard Dean called "the Democratic") wing of the Democratic Party.

Fortunately, endorsements don't mean much. Because when voters turn down what Barbara Ehrenreich recently called Hillary's "white noise" machine, they know that she her politics is centrist Republican (rightist on war and peace issues) and her entire political persona is pure Eva Peron-esque demagoguery.

Fortunately too, the voters decide the character of any political party. The Howard Dean of 2008 has yet to emerge. There is a good likelihood that Democrats in the early states may yet respond to Kuncinich or Gravel's (good ol') McGovern/Dellums' message of rock-solid integrity, decency and hope.

And even if they don't this cycle, the principles of the Democratic Party will endure even as its once-principled exponents compromise the Democratic Party out of existence, to be replaced by a formidable new party.

Proud former intern to Rep. Dellums (1980-81),

Eric C. Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, California

[Misanthrope2]

Shouldn't that be "former proud intern"?

[globalcitizenlinda]

It was once said that a prophet is rarely accepted in their own family – or to paraphrase, a decent person faces greatest resistance from his/her own community. When I look at the members of the congress and senate and specifically those in the Congressional Black Caucus who have endorsed Mrs. Clinton, a pattern seems to emerge. It appears to me that those who support Mrs. Clinton also happen to have served very long in their offices, come from strong traditional families and as result feel a great deal of entitlement. In contrast, those who do not owe many favors recognize the magnitude of this moment in history and are will to do all they can to make fundamental change possible.

In February of this year it was said in the televised discussion about State of the Black Community organized by Tarvis Smiley that most of the current members do not represent their constituents and instead just playing them. Some of these same leaders are the ones who have made careers claiming that other races are the main obstacle to the progress of blacks!! Clearly, this is now I believe the time has come to call up or write to these representatives for an explanation of why they do not recognize the potential positive impact the candidacy of Senator Obama would have on the young people – particularly black men who need more positive reinforcement given the challenges they face. To borrow from the advertisers, the positive impact of the nomination of Obama would be priceless to the Joshua-Generation.

One representative from Georgia who endorsed Obama said something that I suspect namely that he had been harassed by what he public referred to as the Arkansas Mafia for his endorsement. This phrase from an elected official of the same party stood out starkly – does any one remember it? Perhaps this explains the amount of pressure some of these black leaders are under from the Clintons,

[mawrm]

This whole pattern of black elected officials and public figures endorsing Clinton is Exhibit A of what's fundamentally wrong with the African-Am leadership landscape today. If you rewind the clock a couple of years, Dellum faced a similar challenge as Obama - he wanted the chance to be elected, the chance to show he could lead and he was eager for the support of his people to make this happen. Yet today, instead of even trying to help a brother, he'll go further and endorse his opponent?!? I agree, we're not a monolith and we're all entitled to our own opinions. But here we have possibly THE BEST Afr-Am leader after MLK Jr. our nation has ever seen, so much so that in addition to blacks, thousands of whites, Latinos, Asians and others are willing to pound the pavement on his behalf, send in their hard-earned dollars to support his candidacy for presidency, with millions standing ready to cast their vote for him. And yet, Willie Gray decided to endorse HRC because "she supports civil rights" - WTF?!?! The whole endorsement for favors sounds like the textbook definition of SELLOUT to me, precisely how we ended up in chains on a boat to this country in the first place! Self-serving, selfish, myopic bastards!! Are we so beholden to "massa" that we can not even recognize that with Obama as President, we get the hard-fought, priceless opportunity to see one of our own, an intelligent Afr-Am man, a TRUE American and a person who understands our concerns, lead this nation?!?! We get to see a strong, loving, accomplished BLACK FAMILY in the White House, when our black family needs all the help it can get - versus... Monica anyone? Nope, for these idiots, "massa been good to us" and they refuse to leave the plantation. Pathetic.

[dcazal01]

Positions like yours are against the possibility of ever having a black president. The white house is not the place for minorities to settle historical mistreatment

"help a brother"
"endorse his opponent"
"leave the plantation"

We are all brothers and sisters blacks and whites
She is a fellow democrat the opponents are the republicans.
Your choosing of word reveals a resentment that is maybe justifiable but we are choosing the president of all American even the descendants of the owners of the plantation.

[feelfree]

I don't think African Americans agree Obama is the best Black leader since MLK Jr. Frankly I'm surprised that you would mention Obama as a leader in the same sentence with MLK Jr.

What has he done in the Black community or the nation in general to deserve such lofty praise? Nothing.

[Zhonni]

Mawrm,
While I agree with most of your points or at least reason with you, I have to take exception to one thing.

The outrage is not about a black man endorsing Hillary over Obama. If that were the case, you should expect a lot of Whites to decry the endorsement of Obama by white Ret. Generals. It is not a black and white issue. Get the point?

The outrage is over HILLARY BUYING ENDORSEMENTS by promising a favor while in office. Is that not illegal? If it's not, it should be.

There are people out there thinking it is a legitimate endorsement but it is not. He did not endorse her vision nor her past stance but his own political future.

NOW, NOW, THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS!!!

[Fremon]

I used to live in Oakland. Ron Dellum's would not be a good candidate for anything in a new administration. It is my understanding from friends still in Oakland that he pretty much outsources all Mayoral work to others. I don't think he is a hands on guy of the type that would change much in any new position. He wasn't much as a congressman and hasn't improved. I think Hillary thinks he can deliver a substantial black vote in that area with her comments about appointing Dellum's to a new post. He is too old and over the hill. I speak as a registered liberal Democratic voter who lived in Oakland for several years. Barbara Lee, his assistant during his congressional years, and who replaced Dellum's is an activist and a wonderful congress person. Dellum's is not.

[globalcitizenlinda]

The hypocrisy of those who have previously claimed to against the Iraq war has been quiet amazing as they now fall all over themselves to endorse Mrs. Clinton!! She actually voted for the war and continued to support it strongly through numerous speeches. She has never clearly apologized for that vote and has more recently voted yes on Iran which is a clear path to another war. As far as I concerned all these “anti-Iraq- war” people who are pushing her candidacy are equally culpable for the mess in Iraq, the death and wounding of the US soldiers, death of many Iraqis and the refugee crisis. Many of these former “anti-Iraq-war” and questionable progressives are the same people who used to claim that those who voted for Mr. Bush in 2004 had drank the cool-aid. You people are the same ones now supporting perpetual war and the further profit taking of the industrial military complex even as you display peace signs and attend anti-war rallies. This bunch also includes members of the congress who are supporting the Clintons to protect their jobs and those of their family members rather than representing your constituents. Please do not offer your apologies when another war starts and you claim that you were misled because they may not be readily accepted

[vippy]

Did you folks ever consider how Bill Clinton got out of Arkansas? Bush1 and the Clintons are
an item. Bush1 would be happy to see his legacy carried on with Hillary in place. I won't fall for her excellent speaking, saying the right things but never addressing the real
issues. What is her stance on immigration, how will she fix the deficit? And by voting for the
Lieberman/Kyl Amendment she has no chance by those who don't look forward to a war with Iran.

[Centauri]

I do not believe that Repubs want Hilary as the dem candidate. They are very scared of clintons. If they really want Hilary to be the candidate they will not be beating up on her now. They hardly say any negative things about Obama and Edwards becuse they would prefer one of them as the dem candidate in the general election. They would love to swift boat them and run up the negatives.

[dcazal01]

Of course you are 100% right

[mawrm]

Ummm, the Repubs are nowhere near beating up on her up right now. Forgot Kerry and swiftboating? That's beating up!! What the Repubs are smartly doing is laying low until Dems lock themselves in with HRC as prez candidate. They've got more negatives on her than all of the other candidates combined (think _15 years_ of negatives). That's when they'll bring out the monsta can of whoop azz!! Dems being over-confident again are walking into this one. Americans might be mad at Bush, but it's a stretch/highly risky gamble to think they're mad enough to put HRC in the White House. And irregardless of HRC, enough people feel burned by voting for a politician based on their family ties that I doubt they'd want to do it again.

[Halsey]

oh noooo!...w­rong.."the­y"..neo=co­ns WANT Hilary as the demo candide..Rush's numbers (and O'Reilly's)..will return to the heyday of Bill C's republican administra­tion...she will be a one termer.. what scares them, ergo, NOT going after them, is a true "change" aka...Obama or Edwards..they don't know how to deal with that..and they have 8 years of experience bashing clintons...much easier..see..they don't learn new tricks too good...

Next...we'll see Jesse Jackson endorse HRC...with the promise of .hmmm...he­y..ambassa­sor to Israel..he'll do a splended job with those he loathes...or maybe..head of FEMA...where he, like Brownie has no experience....

opportunis­ts...all..­.and HIllary is shameless...
the more I see her..the more I despise the thought of her as president (of course.."if" she gets the nod..I'll have to vote for her over any repub...what a sad state of affairs.

[Misanthrope2]

The candidate who scares the Republicans is John Edwards. He will be the hardest for them to beat.

[Zhonni]

Rove attacked Kerry to elevate Kerry because he thought they have a better chance at defeating him which they did.

Now they are attacking Hillary because they want her to be the nominee. They might well be scared of her as they are of any of the viable democrats for president.

[amosduncan]

Marc Cooper wrote on his blog when Hillary Clinton began her run for the Presidency that he wished her "a misereable experience." His thumb on the scale attacks on the Clintons and Al Gore are well known to the few who read him. Yet this is who the HP puts in charge of covering the campaign?

In the week we read about the millions, perhaps billions, that Blackwater/ Halliburton gang has looted from our treasury, Cooper gives us this. Longtime readers of Cooper will also notice a pattern of deep resentment aimed a black democrates; he has called Maxie Waters a "demagogue." Black conservatives are always given a thumbs up; like Bill O'Reilly, Cooper likes Blacks who think for themselves.

Don't be a sucker. Hillary has plenty of baggage, but Cooper has a lot more; write him off.