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

[SouthernBlueBelle]

Hillary would make a fine president, IF she was able to get elected. Folks, that's not reality. She is the most hoped for candidate by the Repubs. They know that she will get out all the Clinton haters, of which they have bred many, and they can get what ever crappy figure head president that they nominate. Face it, they have been ruling by committee since Reagan. Not a one of them will step outside the lines the party has set for them.

[DCJoe]

But the evidence is decidedly to the contrary. New ABC/Wash Post poll has Hillary beating Rudy by 8 points. If you think that's an outlier, check out all recent polling at realclearpolitics.com. What you'll find is that Hillary consistently beats Rudy by an average margin of more than 5 points in six different polls by six different polling organizations this month. And most of America--which knows all about all of Hillary's dirty laundry--still doesn't know much about the sordid side of Rudy. And its pretty sordid.

I know, I know. The polls are all fixed by some worldwide conspiracy that wants Hillary to be the nominee. So, what about the 100,000 new contributiors? Part of the conspiracy, too, no doubt about it.

The electability argument Obama and Edwards are making is a canard. In a Presidential election, cumbayahs and platitudes don't win. The toughest fighter in the ring wins. That's why Hillary will win.

[ObamaSeeChange]

Maybe we should get a candidate from the World Wrestling Federation to run then.

[moonjumper]

There was an interesting article today on realclearpolitics.com. It basically boiled down to two things. 1) The Republicans are currently more fractured than the Democrats. When they get behind one candidate the Clinton vs. Giuliani (or whoever) polling will most likely tighten. 2) Hillary has troubling polling numbers in states like New Jersey, Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania - swing states that could decide a close election.

With Hillary, we'd most likely get another red-state/­blue-state election. She'd get blown away in the South, do well in the solidly blue states, leaving the purple states to decide the election. Her high negatives DO matter. They matter if she can't swing purple states to blue.

She's not the most formidable candidate. Edwards, Obama, even Richardson all have a better shot at opening up the electoral map.

[Zhonni]

100,000 new contributors?

Remove those who played the LOTTO to go eat chips and watch TV with Bill Clinton, then you would be saying something.

The formidable Clinton fundraiser is being out raised so they have to resort to mediocre way of raising money like Eating Chips With Bill, ala Lincoln Bed Room fundraisers.

[Countess]

Dellums is purchased by the wal-mart of American politics. Sad to think that all those who claim they are for peace and vote for Hillary Clinton will be crying after her first year in office when it becomes obvious that she is for permanent war in the middle east.

[Veleria29]

Are the ones who voted for George Bush Crying because they voted for a man who invaded a Country based on lies and false information. I think Hillary Clinton would have to go a long way down to reach the level Bush has taken this Country.
Bush has created such a mess that even the experts cannot tell us how or when it will end. I think that Hillary has the intelligence and the political knowledge to end the war but even she will have to wait until she is in office to determine how to do it. We have got to remember this is the most secretive administration in the history of this Country and she has no idea what she will find when she takes office. One thing in her favor is Bill Clinton the smartest politician in this century.

[punkingale]

Brilliant, Veleria. And if some of you think Hillary will get blown away in the South, think again. You must have forgotten she lived a large part of her adult life in the South ! Go, Hillary!!!!

[MichaelBalter]

I think we have to put this in the larger context of the Hillary steamroller. It is hard to imagine what will stop her at this point. Third party, anyone? Or will the fear of a Republican victory always, always, always land us with a Democrat who does not fulfill progressive aspirations?

[morris1030]

No one is going to fulfill progressive aspirations [totally].

Stop dreaming. This is why Democrats have not been in office and why we are living through a nightmare. Grow up politically and vote for any of the Democrats who happens to be the Candidate.

Or, keep dreaming of all of your aspirations [I have them, too], and just think for a second what Rudy or GOP Pressident will do next!

Are progressives born hopeless or are we in the REAL and very imperfect world? The Democrats need all the support they can get at this moment of crisis in our history.

Stop nitpicking. Get out the vote and do something productive that can make your life better even if it won't express all of your aspirations.

[Zhonni]

Look, If Dean were the nominee, he would have been president.

It is comment like yours that has to be thrown out. It is this "oh let us be a lil like the Republicans" that's killing us.

We need a candidate who can excite the masses in a progressive agenda, and they would come out and vote in masses.

Some did not vote because Kerry was picked, for he was a little laid back than people wanted. He also voted for the war. We so badly needed an anti-war candidate but conventional thinking prevailed.

Going with the safe choice is what's going to kill us.

[brucds]

I didn’t vote for Dellums, although he had been a hero of mine as a congressman. He hadn’t been a resident, much less a force or even a voice in the city for many years. I wasn’t certain at the time if I was being too cynical, but now I’m glad I didn’t. He’s done a disappearing act as mayor. Recently Dellums told a group of West Oakland residents concerned about the violence in their community, “If you don’t like what I’m doing, recall me and let me get on with my private life.” Dellums’ endorsement of Hillary isn’t his only display of dubious judgement. He’d also endorsed the efforts of Your Black Muslim Bakery (not affiliated with the Nation of Islam) to get city funding not long before their leaders were arrested for shooting down independent African-American journalist Chauncey Bailey in cold blood and broad daylight. I’m getting a serious case of nostalgia for Jerry Brown, who was a disappointment as mayor but hardly prone to insult his constituents at this level of chutzpah.

[AceInTheHole]

I pretty much agree that Mr. Dellums seems stuck in retro mode and may not be relevant to what is happening now. Although I'm older than he is, he seems old to me. But then again a lot of other younger men seem older to me was well. But that's not the point that I'm trying to stress, but it is worthy to note that the former mayor of Denver, Wellington Webb who happens to be black , is also backing Hillary, he's another old Democrat who maybe stuck in retro mode, although he is younger than me as well. With all due respect, I have a sneaking suspicion that senility maybe a factor with some of these old guys.

[DCJoe]

The question you folks should all be asking yourselves is this: Why are all of these prominent black leaders endorsing Sen. Clinton? It would be so safe to endorse Obama. Even if he didn't get the nomination, they would be cheerfully welcomed back into the fold by the nominee. Who could fault a prominent black leader for supporting Obama? Clearly, the big risk is for a black leader to endorse Sen. Clinton. If she loses and Obama wins, they're toast--Obama sure doesn't have to worry about black support. So, why are these prominent, astute, ambitious black politicians endorsing Sen. Clinton? Hmmm.

[CharliePfromHB]

Hilary wants a balanced presence in the region..ie Iraq, Iran, Israel, et al. How we leave Iraq is important and any Democrat will hasten our demilitarization of Iraq. However, how we leave is still important. It's not a Hawk vs Dove issue, but it certainly is one of leadership in the US and in the UN and in the Middle East. The question is who gives us the best shot at filling the void of leadership in bringing the stakeholders together and who has the guts to change our energy direction.

[ObamaSeeChange]

The answer to your question is Barack Obama. I met Ron Dellums as a young sleek radical congressman in 1970. I was assigned as a consultant to the then Caucus membership of only 8 I believe. My job was to devise a fund raising event so that the Black Caucus could hire their own independent staff. Thus I was the Dinner Coordinator for the first Congressional Black Caucus dinner which has now become a big annual weekend event in DC. Over the years I came to admire Ron Dellums as a man of integrity and vision. I admired his endorsement of Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm when she ran for President in 1971-72. He stood almost alone as the only national known black elected official to do so as all the rest of the black elected officials set on their hands and their ego trips. I have not heard or followed much of his career since leaving congress and I don't of a black elected official then Ron Dellums. Today learning of his endorsement of Hillary Clinton for a cheap promise of a policy post in her POTENTIAL administration broke my heart. In the sixties we use to talk remorsefully about not that politicians don't sell out but how cheaply Black politicians sometimes sell out. We used to rue the fact that if they were going to sell out to at least get something of substance. I guarantee you that Ron Dellums was a participant in many of those conversations. Ron.....sa­y it ain't so, please.

[morris1030]

CharliePfromHB,

You have made a very responsible and rational argument for Democrats that wish to leave Iraq without leaving a huge and dangerous void.

Many bloggers sound naive when they express the issue of leaving AT ONCE. First, that isn't even physically possible from a sheer numbers problem.
Secondly, deployment is a matter of leadership as you point out. Forget even the materiel and gunpower left on the ground to remove.

That we bring stakeholders together and craft a program that arises from intelligen­ce,diploma­cy, and political smarts and leadership IS THE RIGHT approach, as you say.

But no Republican even wants to seriously discuss leaving Iraq. Rudy brags that he'd be "tougher" than Bush. McCain wants a Draft! GOP wants a 20 year war. Romney will say anything.

So it is more of a Dove issue than a Hawk issue as the GOP cannot be trusted from any point re:Competence, truth, political savvy, and GREED.