On Race, Betrayal, and My Growing Appreciation of Hillary Clinton (UPDATED SLIGHTLY with a PPS)

Lately there has been some rather over-heated discussion in the papers and on the airwaves about the notion of betrayal.

The unsubtle agitprop "Betray-us or Petraeus" ad (yes, literally untrue, but a useful provocation), became a short-term totem which might re-emerge during the desperate and venal months ahead as an "election issue" to bore the pants off us all. Bush and the remainder of his team, who seem like mid-level Staples floor staffers, must be the actual target for such consideration, not one of his lesser uniformed functionaries.

So the Move-On ad whipped up various bores of the right into a frenzy of priggish obfuscation which in turn fueled a news-cycle or two worth of bush-league outrage in the US Congress and on Fox. The dew-laps on the representatives shook, the speeches were made, scorecards adjusted, Rome continues to burn. Elected Democratic representatives of both genders, in their ever-ugly ill-tailored suits ran for cover, like maladroit and husky kids at a grim game of musical chairs. People turned away from Move-On (and on and on), to watch Kid Nation, Perez Hilton, or Top Chef.

But today, this particular Thursday of 2007, I'll tell you who the real betrayers are, and let's see where the chips fall: The betrayers are every one of those GOP candidates for President who have declined to show up at the African-American voter forum tonight. The betrayers are Romney, Rudy, McCain and the irrelevant and entertaining Thompson.

Race is everything in America today. As much as mismanaged war. As much as fiscal malfeasance. Race is everything. It is at the core of justice and poverty and opportunity and education. Race is everything.

The no-shows, off to their fund-raisers, etc, are betraying a spiritual compact which democracy relies on. Because every white politician in this country running for national office has a huge and terrible compact inherent in the job, an awesome and final responsibility to insist that minority children be thrust into a safe and shining future, an equal one -- a more than equal one.

Because not to attend is a symptom of deep cultural amnesia. Not to attend is to give short-shrift to the civil rights movement itself. It is owed to the memory of Dr. King. Not to answer that call at that forum is to reveal oneself as out of step, out of tune, and out of time. To not go, is to fly over New Orleans and turn around towards Washington, in the manner of the impeachable President we now enjoy. To decline this forum is to reveal a thoughtless pragmatism of the sort that should make one ineligible to even vote let alone run for office.

It is not an act of racism by these men; merely one of shallowness so short-sighted as to be worthy of ideological LASIK surgery.

Whither the romance of a white politico who can excite an unmoved, unimpressed, disenfranchised black electorate? (Oh yeah, they tried to impeach him for lying about his libido.)

And to those who wish to write letters about the stupidity of black Republicans -- don't bother. I don't see why African-Americans shouldn't expect the GOP to offer them an alternative to the anemic soup of the Dems. Every time I write a post, there is a slew of feverish letter writers who reduce the subject at hand to a dullards' game of isolationist and partisan tag.

As I have said before, the mystical and romantic power of this nation is on the wane. The invisible beauty that sometimes runs below the surface of American life is fading away. For years, as a kid, I watched the whites of South Africa become sallow and gummy with indifference and hardness. White politicians in America owe the black electorate their full attention and nothing less. Or else you can hardly blame African Americans for turning to sharpies like Sharpton for leadership and a boost of serotonin, can you?

PS Some months ago I wrote of a run-in I had with Hillary Clinton at an L.A. fundraiser. I watched her on the compulsively entertaining and strangely marvelous Joe Scarborough show last week and found her to be stirring. And then she laughed on FOX like Redford in The Candidate and I liked her even more. The real person was showing up, and she's been running circles around the other would-be nominees. What the hell is happening? Is it that I turned the TV back on, and my brain is no longer whirring away like the dreidel it is?

PPS : Sat, Sept 29. Regarding my after-thought of an observation on Hillary Clinton, which seems to have provoked a number of responses: A slightly closer-reader would note that I did not endorse her in my little PS. That was about mood, tide, an internal, and emotional polling. She was suprising, and it signaled a kind of relaxation in her which was attractive. It could even be construed as an ironic and very back-handed compliment to note that a politician seems more flesh and blood and less mechanical this week than she has in the past. The PS is a minor footnote to my assertion that in order for this country to even approach a condition in which the American dream come near to realizing the mystical glory it craves - as a notion - all of us white people might want to start understanding that we are ALL African-Americans today, or else, we are not Americans at all. Romney, Rudy, the hapless Thomson, and (sadly)
McCain, are, in this bloggers opinion, lesser Americans, and unstatesman-like, because of the choice they made not to bother going to the debate in question.

Comments

[bluesky49876]

"The no-shows, off to their fund-raisers, etc, are betraying a spiritual compact which democracy relies on."

What if the party does not believe in the democratic values but only pays lip service as a convenient politics to con the public?

[punkingale]

If Hillary's nomination will unite the Repukes, why in the hell can't she unite Democrats???? Have all the ones who will never vote for Hillary lost your minds? We should get behind her nomination and help her win by a land slide! She's the most qualified to clean up the mess Little Bush is going to leave behind. VOTE DEMOCRATIC, for all our sakes.

[zizyphus]

Hillary may be the nominee of the Democratic party. If so, progressives should just vote for her in the General Election. The alternative, a Republican in the White House again, is just too terrible to even contemplate.

The reality is, that whoever is the Democratic contender for President must be able to win the votes of white southern men, and those who think like them. My guess is that of the three front-runners, Edwards is most likely to appeal to that group.

The other reality is the voting machines. A national law banning the use of electronic voting machines that are so easily hacked must be enacted, or the whole thing disintegrates into travesty.

But in the Primary- vote for who your heart tells you is on the humane side of all the issues-Dennis Kucinich.

[nihilon x]

"The reality is, that whoever is the Democratic contender for President must be able to win the votes of white southern men, and those who think like them. My guess is that of the three front-runners, Edwards is most likely to appeal to that group."

My cousin and I discussed that at length. When I brought up Obama, he immediately said "why do Democrats keep nominating unelectable candidates?"

My cousin is a realist and I'm more of an idealist. With that said, even though Hillary or Obama might not be the most "electable" candidates in the race, I don't think its right to vote for Edwards just because he's the candidate most likely to appeal to "southern white males".

There comes a point where you have to stand your ground and support your candidate no matter what the odds. I don't blame those who voted for Ralph Nader for Bush's election -- they voted their conscience, as they should have. That's just how democracy works.

Now -- will my cousin prove to be correct in assuming that Hillary and Obama are "unelectable"?

That remains to be seen.

But one thing is for sure -- people are ready for REAL change, and this is probably most opportune time in American history for a non-white male candidate to win the presidential office.

Nothing against white males in specific, but in a nation as diverse as America, it is certainly past time that we had a President who somehow reflects said diversity.

[Qbear]

I might have been able to hold my nose and vote Clinton, even though I keep Obama will assert himself. Then Clinton voted aye on Kyl/Lieber­man,,,,,ga­me over.
Now, I'll actively work against Clinton getting the Democratic nomination. I wouldn't vote for Hillary if her opponent was Cheney HIMSELF.
why bother?

[Qbear]

Kyl/Lieberman

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-8/1210139/KylLieberman.jpg

[tbone99]

Get ready as Hilary has betrayed us once again.Voting for the war in Iraq was WRONG then ,even if all the evidence was right about their WMD, so what- they were a soverign nation that had not threatened us in ANY way, nor were they implicated in 9/11 at all.Voting for the Kyl Lieberman amendment is her second betrayal as she takes us into war with Iran,wasting what money ,soldiers and respect we have left to prove that she's as tough as any chicken hawk.Why does'nt she just run as the Republican she started out as.

[jsarets]

I have the horrible sinking feeling that Leiberman/Kyl and the EFPs is the WMD fiasco happening all over again. We're not going to realize that the not-so-sop­histicated shaped charges were being manufactured predominantly in Iraq by Sunni Arabs (Iraqis and Saudis rather than Iranians) until we're bogged down in another bloody and costly quagmire.

To suggest that the Iraqi insurgency can't make directional explosives and infrared triggers on their own is like saying a 15-year-old American boy can't make a potato gun from stuff he finds in Home Depot. I built a rail gun back in high school that fired a steel ball from one endzone to the other and through the uprights.

Ironically, this *is* rocket science, although rocket science just isn't very hard anymore. This isn't the 1940s. Just because Paris Hilton isn't familiar with *this sort* of forced penetrator doesn't mean that the battle-hardened insurgents aren't. They know their way around homebrew explosives like we know our way around our local Wal-Mart.

Anyone who hopes that Hillary will move to the left once elected is delusional. Everybody moves to the right. Bill did it, and even Cheney found some room to the right. Maybe if we started supporting candidates a bit to the left of our personal beliefs, we'll actually get what we deserve. They have to steer a right-leaning ship anyway.

[leftLibertarian]

She's a professional politician which means she'd sell her mom to make a buck and she wouldn't give two shits about selling our country down the river. She's Bush with two more boobs.

[frost]

.

Hillary Clinton just voted to let Bush attack
Iran..

Hillary Clinton has a "goal" to get our troops out..

wow a goal..

more dead soldiers and more debt..
.

[dcazal01]

I was reading the poll of who are the favorites democratic candidates for the REPUBLICANS.

Obama number one with 26% the Richardson 25% and Eduards and last Hillary.

Funny think that republicans prefer a black community worker and a pro immigration latino oh YES....

From the waters of the Nile
a dog was drinking and running
mean and ugly crocodile
drink still was him advising

[situationcritical]

I am just waiting, patiently waiting, for the tone of HRC-deniers' arguments to change once Hillary is the official Democratic Presidential Nominee.

*******************
Clinton/Obama '08
*******************

[spunkster]

A. MEN. I've been saying for months, if not longer, that the H. Post seems often like a gathering ground for Hillary Haters. You'd think it was a blog of the Houston Chronicle or Dallas Morning News. Nut jobs on the left want everything black and white, no nuance, no deep water, much like the right. Life isn't like that, American political life has never been that way. The Clintons are not like that, neither is Obama or Edwards. Those who constantly say "I will never" vote for HRC should get used to the idea that she is the likely nominee. But maybe Nader will be back to save them once again.

[jsarets]

I don't believe that many "HRC-deniers" are arguing that she isn't the presumptive nominee. Their argument is that this isn't a good thing. Once again, sensible progressives will be compelled to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Clinton/Obama? I don't think so. The only thing preventing Obama from becoming an unbeatable candidate in a couple election cycles (assuming he doesn't get the nomination this time) is accepting the bottom of Hillary's ticket. They disagree mightily on how to get from here to where we need to be as a nation. Hillary wants to play the game. Obama wants to change the rules.

If you want Hillary, you get Biden on the bottom. I don't really see any other possibility.

[punkingale]

What about General Wesley Clark?

[gooch]

Hillary is power hungry. How power hungry? What selfrespecting women would stay with their husband after his "sexual indiscresions" with Monica Lewinski? Hillary, that's who. As a quid pro quo, she took a position at the head of the table for Healthcare reform in the USA. She knew that it was a political advantage to stick with "Slick Willy". DAMN HE'S CHARMING. Obama is the only candidate running on the platform of "WAKE THE F**K UP AMERICA". These policies don't work. Hillary really is "Bush-Cheney Lite"

[dcazal01]

No she is not, she is very smart and Obama will endorse her once she is the nominee as she will endorse him if he wins.

If what you say about her is true then obama is as hypocritical as the worst republicans.

Both are good, lets the best win and get to the general elections with our team intact.

[Rhydderch69]

The question is how hard Obama -- or his grassroots -- will campaign for her.

[tlcutter]

Being a good politician does not make you a good leader,(BUSH)need I say more. Hillary is an excellent politician. She allows her handlers to speak for her but through her. She will say whatever the crowd in front of her at any given moment wants to hear. Her appearances on all the weekend political shows last Sunday proved one thing. She has no substance and readily avoids any controversial questions ( unless it has been polled beforehand). Unfortunately the best Democratic candidates do not have the money or the media to help them get to the top. This election is like all other elections it will be bought and paid for by special interest by the candidate that is most willing to sell their soul for personal gain.

[TommyT]

Many women (and men) choose to stay with their partners in light of sexual indescretion. It's called love and commitment, Gooch. It happens, sometimes. For God's sake, enough with the hate. If you don't like a democratic candidate, that's fine. But don't sit around actively bashing them and adding fuel to the neocon fire. She has good a chance as any of the other candidates of becoming the nominee, and thus, the only thing standing between us and another four years under god-awful neo-conservative rule. You'd be a damned fool to not support her (or whoever the candidate is) then.

[prettypony]

You know what? I'd forgive him too. He's brilliant, cares deeply about humanity, injustice, poverty, and the environment. Easily the best President in modern history. I'd say the positives easily outweigh the negatives.
I love how the neocons bash her for staying with him when they love to preach family values. Most of them are going to need forgiveness too, they just haven't been caught yet.
It saddens me to see posts here from people who say they will never vote for her no matter what. That kind of thinking will lead us to a President Thompson or worse yet, a President Guilliani. God help us all!

[planetclaire4]

I don't care what she does with her personal life, but I do care what she does and would do with her public one. After accepting "intel" from those marvellous folk who brought us Iraq, that she votes yes on Lieberman-Kyl proves her memory is too damn short for me. Now that her Tough Self has voted for labeling the military force of a sovereign nation "terrorist," I wonder how her Smart Self intends to get closer to diplomatic talks with that country, only one aspect of how egregious that vote for an entirely egregious bill is.

[Rhydderch69]

Meh, I don't mind that the Clintons stayed together after Monica.

What I do mind is that they let Gore swing in the wind in the whole affair. They asked him to testify on Clinton's behalf. Then, Clinton himself recanted on his testimony.

Bill and Monica bear some significant responsibility for George W. Bush's election. As a result of his assertion that Clinton had not lied, Gore started the 2000 election as 'damaged goods' with his integrity in question. He selected Lieberman as a running mate in part to repair that damage, but needless to say, there were costs to that decision.

It is worth noting that this instance was both the most egregious example of the Clintons' inability to offer coattails for successors or 'allies' down-ticket.

Thanks... But no thanks.

[joe6671]

Hillary will get the Democratic nomination. Why? Name recognition is terribly important; the Clinton name resounds. Willian J Clinton was also a very good president. Of course the opposition will throw in Monica or a $400 haircut or Whitewater to confuse people who dont follow politics or dont fully understand it. But he was. He kept the peace, had a prosperous economy , was highly regarded internationally and cared for the small guy passing the family leave act , gave tangible support to police at the local level and many other things. People will remind themselves in the voting booth who really was their friend. And they will also remember that this couple devoted their entire public life to service , public service , that Hillary was always active in public affairs and on all issues she was on the side of common interest. As the debates between the candidates roll on it is becoming quite clear that she talks easily to public issues , expresses herself well and maintains her total composure . The other candidates impress me as less worthy , verbose about small differences which cannot be evaluated properly in debates during elections. Finally , I'd say with some degree of confidence that by electing Hillary we'll be getting 2 presidents. W and H dont sleep in the same bed; Bill and Hillary do.

[tlcutter]

Kept the peace at the price of not protecting this country.

[nihilon x]

A little good news as a change from all the negativity -- since Villagairosa endorsed Hillary, I think it can fit into this topic.

If nothing else, its something that more large cities should consider trying.

--

Big drop in homicides in L.A.

The turnaround comes after a high-profile program that enlists the help of gang intervention workers.

By Hector Becerra and Richard Winton, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

10:35 AM PDT, September 28, 2007

Los Angeles has seen a significant decline in homicides so far this year -- including a 50% drop in killings in some South L.A. neighborhoods, such as Watts -- as police embarked on a new strategy involving asking ex-gang members to help prevent violence.

The city got through the traditionally violent summer months with 167 gang-related homicides, compared with 214 for the same period last year. Homicides citywide are now at levels not seen since 1970.

The drop comes nine months after Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton vowed to crack down on gangs. But though previous anti-gang campaigns have involved mass arrests and high-profile sweeps, this effort has been more targeted.

And in its most radical shift, the LAPD is putting aside decades of suspicion and turning for help to gang intervention workers, many of whom were gang members.

"For the first time, we're requiring captains to call the gang interventionists, give them the word on the shooting and get out there and avert another homicide," Deputy Police Chief Charlie Beck said.

"We are pretty good at solving homicides, but we are trying to get better at preventing the next homicide."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/los_angeles_metro/la-me-gangs28sep28,1,3132278.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true

[hawkjt]

Hillary voted to allow bush to invade iraq without doing her homework..

This is not presidential behavior.

Obama has been dead right on every single issue. Read his positions.

Barack Obama is the best chance to get this country back on track.

[mtrav]

and he's been around for what, two weeks?

[Swift2]

I'll tell you, the enemy is already massing. David Bossie is making a Hillary "documentary," having failed to do Hillary in by editing illegally-leaked phone calls from Webb Hubbell. There's a web site called Stop Her Now, and there will be SwiftBoat crap galore. I do have more confidence in Hillary being able to overcome these attacks, because she's done it for 18 years.

But make no mistake: there will be similar attacks on whatever Democrat gets the nomination.

[dcazal01]

I am proud of being a democrat today; the worst democratic candidate is better than the best of what the republican party is offering (what a bunch of... Republicans)

Obama what a great guy smart and nice.

Richardson very good and experienced.

Edwards a decent person with a marvelous wife.

Hillary very smart

Kucinich what a decent person

I will happily vote for any of them the cream of the melting pot.

[SensibleAmerican]

More and more sensible Democrats are voicing their opinions and my honest-to-goodness request to them is to keep commenting! Soon all the left-fring­e-looney-t­unes will not be the only "voices that are heard"!

To lose elections and keep protesting is their essence and existence! If it is not Hillary they will find someone else. They had the same accusations against Al Gore in 2000 and now he has became their "messiah"!

[situationcritical]

Now that's the correct way to view our democratic candidates. All their positive points are easily identifiable.

Hillary, in particular is not just smart - she is brilliant.

[kitsapdem]

Agreed!!! We all need to start getting behind Hillary here, because she will be the nominee. And the GOP - knowing she will be - is already getting their guns in order. They would do it to anyone, but we all need to be united no matter who the candidate is. And unless something radically changes...Hillary is it.