HILLARY CLINTON DOESN'T DESERVE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE


HILLARY CLINTON DOESN’T DESERVE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION


Blank statement: Hillary Clinton does not deserve the Democratic Nomination for president–in fact, based on what these primaries have revealed of her character, she doesn’t even deserve her seat in the senate. While Hillary has long since switched to the Democrat Party, recent weeks have clearly demonstrated that her Republican inclination towards cutthroat politics, shallow character and deceit remains firmly in tact. Compelling evidence of that is the CBS News report indicating that Hillary said, both she and Senator John McCain offer the experience to respond to a crisis, while Barack Obama only offers rhetoric. Specifically, he report quoted her as saying, "He’s [John McCain’s] never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002." That is the most mean-spirited and irresponsible remark that one Democrat can make about another prior to a national election. With that statement she has essentially–no, in fact-- endorsed Republican, John McCain over Barack Obama if she fails to get the Democratic nomination.

That statement, along with her subsequent behavior clearly demonstrates that Hillary Clinton has embarked upon a scorched Earth campaign against both Barack Obama and the Democratic Party as a whole, and it is also now clear that her every move is designed to hold the very viability of the Democratic Party hostage against nominating anyone but herself.

Further evidence of that is in spite of her claim during the last debate that she is "so honored to be here with Senator Obama" and that she represents change, throughout the run up to the Texas/Ohio primaries she has engaged in the Karl Rovian politics of mudslinging ("to see what will stick"), the politics of fear, and an attempt to ridicule Senator Obama’s strengths, even though she certainly realizes that if Obama is the nominee her attacks will make it more difficult for him to be elected in November. In fact, that is her plan–to sling so much mud on Obama that he won’t be able to mount a viable campaign against the Republican nominee.


In my article, Will the Reall Hillary Please Stand Up?, I pointed out that "Even Bill Clinton has acknowledged that if Hillary doesn’t get a win in Texas, she won’t get the presidential nomination. So in the next two weeks her character, and the kind of experience she brings to the table will be on display. If she’s truly committed to change, and what’s in the best interest of the United States, we’ll see a lady engaged in a valiant, yet, clean fight for the nomination. But if the "experience" she so often speaks of is of the old-style, me-first, America-be-damned kind of politics of the past, we’re going to see a lot of lying, desperate mudslinging, and win-at-any-cost kind of tactics."

I also pointed out in that same article that "Hillary is right in one respect, however–experience can be impressive, as we saw in the Texas debate–and she certainly has it. But Hillary has the wrong kind of experience–she’s experienced in the old ways of voter manipulation. During the debate we saw a chameleon at work–first we saw the cordial Hillary, but she felt she needed to set herself apart; then she became presidential Hillary, but Obama easily matched her sober, no nonsense veneer; then she went into attack dog Hillary, only to quickly change tactics after being booed; towards the end, she finally settled on Saint Hillary, to confer love upon her opponent. It took her the entire debate, but being the "experienced" politician that she is, she finally stumbled on just the right tone of manipulation. I have a feeling we’re going to see a lot more of that in the future, so I just wanted to give you a playbook so you can keep up with which Hillary is on display."


No, I’m not clairvoyant, it’s just that Hillary is so self-serving that she’s predictable. You see, Hillary is so far behind Obama in the number of delegates necessary to secure the nomination that she’d have to win all of the remaining primaries by over 20 points just to catch up. In short, she can no longer win the nomination–the only way she can get it is to steal it. Thus, she’s calculated that the only way she can become the nominee is through hook, crook, and deceit. So she’s calculated that she must threaten to destroy the Democratic Party’s chances of winning the November election in order to secure her community property rights–the office of the presidency. That’s right, she sees it as her entitlement.

So, even though all of the democratic candidates agreed beforehand not to campaign, or seat, the delegates in Florida and Michigan due to the states’ violation of a prohibition against holding their primaries before February 5, now Hillary is demanding that the 366 delegates be seated, and with good reason. In spite of the fact that all of the democratic candidates, including Hillary, agreed that those delegates wouldn’t be counted, when all of the other candidates took their names off the ballot, Hillary allow her name to remain on, and since she was the only Democratic name on the ballot, technically, she won the primary. Now that she’s hopelessly behind Obama in delegates, she wants to change the rules of the game and count those delegates.


A fight over this issue would tear the Democratic Party apart and allow a republican victory in November. Hillary knows that, and she also knows that Obama is the people’s choice for the Democratic nomination, but instead of taking the high road and simply bowing out gracefully, she’s holding the Democratic Party hostage as she slings mud at Obama, so that later she can convince the superdelegates (the party bigwigs) that Obama is so muddied that he wouldn’t be a viable candidate–never mind the fact she’s the one who’s throwing the mud.

So the real Hillary has finally stood up, and what do we find–vindictiveness, deceit, and self-service. Some would call that hardball politics. I call it a flaw in her character, that should preclude her from the Democratic nomination.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

Mommie, I Smell A Lie.

(You Can't Fool A Child).

SPEAK UP/SPEAK OUT

By: Nathaniel Gadsden
Founder & Director
Nathaniel Gadsden’s Writers Wordshop
1416 Cumberland Streets
Harrisburg, Pa. 17103
pgadsden@aol.com
www.nathanielgadsden.com
(717)233-7611


Recently, the cities of Harrisburg and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, have been rocked with a string of senseless shooting deaths. Almost all of the victims were young African Americans, and the killers were also young African Americans. Unfortunately, this is not shocking news to most people living in Harrisburg, the United States, or the planet earth. The sad reality is, African Americans are killing one another, in what I call, a Self-imposed Holocaust and we don’t know what to do about it. We have marched, held town meetings, supported tougher sentencing guidelines, called on God and cried. Every step we take forward against the Holocaust it appears that we lose a step. We are a resilient people, strong and vibrant at our best, but even the strongest foundation can begin to crack, over time, if the steady drip of destruction is not repaired.
I want to propose something to all writers, spoken word artist and performers/actors of the African American Community. Let’s refocus our energy, time, and talent toward the total destruction of the African Holocaust in America, Africa, and anywhere it prevails. Let’s put aside our fixation on relationships, personal stardom, and intellectual showmanship and gather together under one God directed path of the complete and total destruction of the African Holocaust. We will only write, speak, create product and energy that eliminates self-murder in our communities. We will not adopt the language of the “fool” and pretend that it is something special, you know, “a black thing.”

We will not allow our “voices”, public celebrities, or private citizens to fill the air with gossip, put-downs, and fowl language. Even Tom Joyner, Jay Anthony Brown and the other celebrity voices will be held to this standard or we will simply stop listening. Our performers, such as Eddie Murphy, Monique, Jay Anthony Brown and others, will take responsibility for their craft, or we will stop supporting them. And we take this stand not to destroy our voices and creative genius, but to say no to the misuse of our God-giftedness any longer, no matter who the artist is.

We must take this stand, because we know that the creative community has major influence over the minds of our community. Much of the negative energy and negative life choices that are being made in Harrisburg and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, can be found in most towns and cities where our people reside. The common thread that connects us is too often the movies, television programs, plays, radio shows, magazines, and sporting events. What is said through these outlets carries an enormous amount of influence in African American communities, including Harrisburg and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. As a Writer/Creative person I must do all that I can to ensure that the images and messages I give life to do not ultimately take a life from the community I love. Will you join me?

I would like to hear from you. Let’s start a movement of creative artist dedicated to saving the lives of our people. I can be reached at (717)233-7611 or email: pgadsden@aol.com. My Web page is: nathanielgadsden.com

Hillary Clinton's Black Supporters In a Difficult Situation

This may come as a shock, but Hillary Clinton DOES have some black supporters left. Not many, but a few.

Black supporters of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton have been thrown a major monkey wrench in the Presidential campaign. Many political leaders made their careers on the backs of the Clinton family and from day one, they never saw Obama becoming a serious candidate.

They have been proven oh so wrong, and they don't quite know what to do about it.

African-Americans represent the only major voting block that Senator Clinton has not been able to carry in at least one of the Democratic primaries. Obama now carries 84 percent of the black vote in Alabama, 87 percent in Georgia, 84 percent in Maryland and the list goes on and on.

People have joked that black people can't stick together. But this election is proving that the myth is not reality.

Being black and maintaining support for Hillary Clinton has not worked out for many prominent black leaders. Bob Johnson was attacked heavily for supporting Clinton. Tavis Smiley was virtually tarred and feathered by the black community for questioning Obama's commitment to blackness. It has gotten to the point that many prominent African-Americans in support of Clinton are simply keeping quiet about their loyalty.

"Obama has become almost like a trend in the black community," says Dr. Boyce Watkins. "Whether that is a good or bad thing, we won't know until he is elected. But seeing a real black man running for office has reminded many that Bill Clinton was not the first Black President. Hillary and Bill have been living off that untruth for years."

Last Friday, 25 prominent supporters of Hillary Clinton held a closed conference to discuss how they deal with the fact that people "pester, intimidate, question our blackness" for not supporting Obama.

The person putting the call together was Rep. John Lewis of Georgia. Lewis, once a strong supporter of the Clintons, has now begun to waver in his support. His constituency in Georgia favors Obama 5 to 1, a fact that he simply cannot ignore.

Trenton Mayor Doug Palmer is determined to remain a strong supporter of Clinton, stating that it was time, "to stand up and say why you're for Hillary Clinton in the face of adversity. We can't afford to be wishy-washy . . . Stand up. Fight. Advocate for your candidate. Don't capitulate. . . . Don't let nobody intimidate or threaten you. Just hold on."

This is not the first time this has happened. In 1984, many black supporters of Walter Mondale were feeling pressure during Jesse Jackson's run for The White House. The primary difference is that Jackson was not nearly as strong of a contender as Obama. The argument at the time was that they were being safe by supporting the likely winner. They cannot make the same argument with Obama.

Former San Fransisco Mayor Willy Brown put it in perspective.

"I think most white politicians do not understand that the race pride we all have trumps everything else."

Only time will tell how things turn out. But with Barack Obama being the front-runner in the race for the Democratic nomination, history is surely being made.

Barack Obama: The New Black Power?

by Dr Peniel E. Joseph

Barack Obama’s meteoric rise from charismatic senator to national phenomenon to presidential contender reveals the complex evolution of black politics since the civil rights and Black Power era. Obama’s candidacy is particularly noteworthy during this primary season and election year, which comes on the fortieth anniversary of 1968, a year when effort to transform American democracy ran headlong into a violent defense of white supremacy. Born in 1961, the same year Freedom Riders faced prison to desegregate interstate travel across the nation, Obama remains aloof to the culture wars—whether based in racial, gender or ethnic solidarity—that remain a cornerstone of the legacy of the 1960s. “I think America is still caught in a little bit of a time warp,” Obama confessed to Newsweek last summer. “The narrative of black politics is still shaped by the ’60s and black power.” Indeed.

Obama at rally in Nashua copyright 2008 Jeff GlagowskiBlack Power era radicalism loomed over 1968, a year most often remembered for the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy in the spring, followed by the election of Richard Nixon as president in the fall. Urban rebellions—what the media and law enforcement officials referred to as riots—gripped dozens of cities that year, in the sixth straight summer of civil disorders. Radicalized college and high school students staged raucous demonstrations, walkouts and campus takeovers that sent shockwaves through much of the nation.

Black radicals stood at the center of these demonstrations. Advocates of Black Power would ultimately transform American democratic institutions through gritty, often provocative, street demonstrations, campus takeovers and community organizing that challenged entrenched black leadership as much as government officials.

Four decades have passed since King was cut down by an assassin’s bullet on Thursday, April 4, 1968. It’s worth remembering how King’s post-’65 push for economic justice, critique against the Vietnam War, and efforts to galvanize the nation’s poor stood, in part, as a response to criticism from black militants.


The years between the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown decision calling for desegregation and the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act are popularly recalled as the heroic period of civil rights struggle. In scholarly and popular histories this era is most often evoked by a collage of images that begins with a black woman holding a newspaper sign announcing the Brown decision; moves to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King being arrested for participating in the bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama; stops briefly to show federal troops protecting black students in Little Rock, Arkansas; before jumping ahead to dramatic pictures of racial terror in Birmingham that include stark footage of black civil rights demonstrators being attacked by German shepherds and fire hoses. King’s August 1963 March on Washington speech becomes the centerpiece of this newsreel style version of history.

But there is another side to this story that is often left untold, but crucial to understanding contemporary black politics. During the same decade that cast King in the spotlight, black radicals, led by Malcolm X, confronted American democracy’s jagged edges of poverty, police brutality, poor schools, unemployment, and an emerging urban crisis through bruising protests in places such as Harlem, Detroit, and Los Angeles. While critical of the civil rights movement’s focus on desegregating public accommodations and what many considered its overemphasis on the power of the vote, many of these Northern militants drew inspiration from these struggles and simultaneously participated in both movements. Early Black Power radicals, most notably Malcolm X, drew strength and power from the international arena, paying particularly close attention to the 1955 Bandung Conference in Indonesia, Ghanaian independence in 1957 and the Cuban Revolution of 1959. When Fidel Castro came to Harlem in 1960, the first leader he met with was Malcolm X. In February of 1961 what several years later would become known as Black Power made its national debut via an organized demonstration at the United Nations in protest against the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, the prime minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

In 1966 Stokely Carmichael, a young civil rights organizer who had done impressive work in some of the most dangerous parts of the South, gave name to a pre-existing movement by calling for “Black Power” in the heat of the Mississippi Delta. Black Power would galvanize black radicals, but quickly came under fire—then and now—for advocating what critics argued was a racially separatist philosophy that promoted anti-white feeling, fomented violence, and reeked of sexism. In truth, while certain Black Power activists were guilty as charged, the major strains of the movement represented a far more nuanced and radical critique of American society. Black Power activists harbored a deep cynicism regarding the ability of American democracy to be extended to African Americans. Carmichael’s pursuit of political, economic and cultural power came only after suffering years of physical violence and abuse at the hands or ordinary white citizens while trying to promote voting rights among sharecroppers.

1968 was also the year of the Black Panthers, perhaps the most enduring symbol of Black Power era radicalism. Contemporary mythology surrounding the Panthers focuses on the group’s bravado, flashy clothes, guns, and fiery polemics that advocated an armed confrontation against the state. Less well remembered is the fact that co-founder and minister of defense Huey P. Newton was a college student and an ex-con, a young organizer who cared deeply about the survival of the black community. On this score, the Black Panthers launched a host of “survival programs” during their relatively brief (1966-1982) existence that focused on bread and butter issues, including health care, decent housing, food, clothes and the treatment of prisoners.

The Panthers were, in fact, simply the most spectacular manifestation of the Black Power era’s call for radical democracy. Black college and high school students from New York City to Greensboro, North Carolina out to San Francisco successfully transformed university curriculums and founded Black Studies programs and departments around the nation. Trade unionists in Detroit and other cities attempted to organize workers caucuses to challenge the entrenched racism of white-controlled unions. Led by Amiri Baraka, Nikki Giovanni, Sonia Sanchez and many others, the Black Arts Movement re-imagined the very contours of blackness through poetry, prose, theater, dance, music and style. Black feminists challenged sexism both in the society and in the Black Power movement itself, arguing for a more inclusive vision of Black Power that promoted a human rights agenda. Welfare mothers from New York City to Las Vegas dreamed of a guaranteed income and, when Dr. King met with them to encourage their participation in the Poor People’s Campaign, they lectured him on the intricacies of public policy. Finally, hundreds of thousands of ordinary local people backed a new generation of black politicians and successfully elected them as mayors of a range of urban cities in the 1960s through the early 1980s, including Cleveland, Gary (Indiana), Newark, Atlanta, Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia.


Barack Obama is a direct beneficiary of this rich and varied legacy. As late as Harold Washington’s historic 1983 mayoral victory in Chicago and Jesse Jackson’s robust 1984 presidential campaign, the Black Power legacy infused black political protest, organizing and even electoral politics. Black Power’s impact was of course often blunted by the media’s refusal to acknowledge its continued existence after the mid-1970s. But something happened to black politics in the post-Black Power era, perhaps best exemplified by Jesse Jackson’s own meteoric rise from insurgent outsider to the most recognizable black power broker within Democratic Party circles. Jackson’s route followed a trajectory taken by venerable activists such as Andrew Young, John Lewis and other civil rights veterans who came to define King’s increasingly radical dream as accommodation with powerful white neo-liberals.

Jackson’s endorsement of Obama notwithstanding, the aging civil rights cadre has repudiated Obama because he threatens to cut them out of their cozy deals as intermediaries between the Democratic Party establishment and the black community. But from Black Power’s legacy we have been given Barack Obama, an intelligent, handsome and inspiring politician whose blackness has become a source of his racially transcendent appeal. Yet, when we take a closer look, Obama has all the trappings of a strong, if closeted, race man, complete with a lovely black wife, two beautiful black daughters and membership in a black church that is unabashedly Afrocentric. Until recently, Obama appeared to be more of the leader of a movement than a bona fide presidential candidate. A victory in the Iowa caucuses changed that and the Clinton campaign launched a series of racially coded, but still patently obvious, lines of attack through various proxies that brought up Obama’s substance abuse as a young man, slurred his anti-war record as a “fairy-tale,” and impugned Dr. King’s legacy by asserting that it took Lyndon Johnson to actually pass civil rights legislation. These attacks have successfully served the Clintons’ Machiavellian purposes: to out Barack Obama as a black candidate. They are also reminiscent, in their own way, of the worst kind of racial pandering engaged in by the Democratic Party’s southern wing during the post-Reconstruction era. While certainly not as blatant as Alabama governor George Wallace’s infamous “segregation then, segregation now and segregation forever” statement, the impact of the Clinton campaign’s racial politicking is similar: it casts racial difference as un-American, subversive, and a threat to the very foundations of the nation’s democracy. But, even as it successfully positions Hillary Clinton to win the party’s nomination, this strategy may have crippling long-term repercussions. As black Americans become increasingly aware of the Clinton campaign’s ugly efforts to racially swift boat Obama’s candidacy, there could be a backlash among African American voters come November.

By playing the race card, the Clintons have successfully pivoted the Democratic primary away from substantive political issues (e.g., the war in Iraq) and turned it into a debate over which oppressed group (blacks or women) deserves the nomination. Gloria Steinem’s New York Times op-ed piece, published in the aftermath of Clinton’s loss in Iowa, set the tone for this storyline, arguing that black men had received the right to vote fifty years before white women while conveniently ignoring that most blacks could not exercise that right until 1965 because of racial apartheid in the South. Predictably, as attacks by prominent white politicians and ex-president Bill Clinton on Obama mount, the black community has rallied with the latent sense of nationalism that is always bubbling beneath the surface. For all intents and purposes, Obama has now been outed as a black candidate, the very moniker his entire campaign had successfully avoided. By promoting a robust version of the American Dream, albeit in Technicolor, Obama’s campaign had heretofore avoided that perception.

This need not be the political Achilles heel that many might imagine. After all, contrary to popular opinion, the Black Power Movement fought for bread and butter issues that made an impact on the lives of all Americans, including good public schools, decent housing, healthcare and gainful employment. While activists looked for racially specific solutions to problems rooted in slavery, a variety of multi-ethnic and racial groups looked to the movement as a broad template for social and political justice goals. In this sense, contemporary discussion of multiculturalism and diversity are rooted in the radically democratic ethos of the Black Power era. Obama has recently come under attack for comments suggesting that Ronald Reagan’s presidency reflected a deeper more substantive change in America than Nixon or Clinton. I absolutely concur, even as I vehemently object to the Reagan era’s acceleration of black poverty, incarceration and misery. Reagan’s presidency in many ways represented a counter-revolution to the search for “land, peace, bread, and justice” advocated by the Black Panthers. Obama’s legacy is still unfolding before our eyes. Ironically, the key to achieving the broad, racially transcendent impact that his soaring rhetoric aspires towards may lie in lessons taught by a Black Power Movement whose legacy Obama is unlikely to ever publicly claim.

Print About the Author

Peniel E. Joseph is associate professor of African and Afro-American Studies at Brandeis University. He is the author of the award-winning Waiting Til the Midnight Hour: A Narrative History of Black Power in America (Holt, 2006) and editor of The Black Power Movement: Rethinking the Civil Rights-Black Power Era (Routledge, 2006). A native New Yorker (and former Brooklyn resident), he is writing a biography of activist Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael).

Hillary Clinton's Secret Past: Aligning Yourself with a Racist

by Dr. Boyce Watkins
www.BoyceWatkins.com
www.YourBlackWorld.com

Senator Barack Obama has sent Hillary Clinton’s camp into a panic. The Internet generation, with the wide accessibility of information, has put her image into a tailspin. The more we dig into Hillary’s past, the more clearly we can see what the Clinton’s have brought to Black America.
I also remain cautiously optimistic about Barack Obama, and only time will tell what kind of leader he will become. But my concerns about Hillary Clinton came a couple of years ago, during a conversation I had with one of her top advisors. Since I advocate for black males, the advisor asked me to help Senator Clinton round up African-American men who don’t normally vote so they could support the benevolent politician as she charged forward to The White House. Barack Obama didn’t yet exist, so the idea of actually having a black man representing black men was out of the question.
Quite honestly, the awkward conversation made me feel the way a Freshman sorority girl feels when the drunken, horny frat boy says “I will love you forever” (as he slowly unzips her pants). They wanted something from me, and my gut said that black men would move back down the priority list right after Senator Clinton’s crew had been satisfied.
Hillary Clinton wants votes. She knows how to get them. She wants to be President of the United States. Barack Obama has become a nuisance. Mrs. Clinton has wanted to be president since she was a child, even choosing the right husband to get the job done. I respect a focused person, I really do.
The problem is that Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill have ridden to prosperity, in large part, on the backs of black people. These are the same black people who may or may not be aware of the Clinton path to political success. We see the Clintons in black churches, smacking on barbecue chicken, playing the saxophone with sun glasses and saying “You go girl” in the middle of their speeches. But looking at the Clintons’ past reveals something entirely different.
Hillary Clinton, when trying to prove that she is every bit as black as Barack Obama, often mentions her deep involvement with the Civil Rights Movement. She regularly speaks of listening to Martin Luther King and how it moved her to fight for racial equality. Barack Obama was a baby in 1963, so he was only fighting in the struggle against mandatory potty training.
In Hillary’s words, she was not being potty trained, but involving herself in a dogfight for African American freedom: “As a young woman, I had the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963. My youth minister from our church took a few of us down on a cold January night to hear [King]. . . . And he called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the civil rights pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union.”
If Senator Clinton was so deeply moved by Dr. Martin Luther King, then why was she so closely aligned with Senator Barry Goldwater, a known racist and one of the few Senators who opposed passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Martin Luther King gave his life to get this law passed, and it would seem that anyone so moved by King’s legacy would not be one of the greatest supporters of one of Martin Luther King’s greatest enemies.
The truth is this: In 1963, Hillary Clinton was a Republican. But knowing Hillary Clinton, she wasn’t just any Republican. She was President of the Young Republican Organization at Wellesley College and an overwhelming supporter of Senator Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater did not like African Americans, and he especially hated Martin Luther King Jr.
In her memoirs, Hillary Clinton describes herself as 'an active Young Republican' and 'a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit.'
OK. Perhaps there is some small chance that while attending his "radical" Islamic Kindergarten (the one that Hillary’s camp warned us about), Barack Obama was also Goldwater Girl. But I doubt it. A self-proclaimed “Goldwater Girl” doesn’t sound like someone who was standing with Dr. Martin Luther King in his fight for Civil Rights. When you align yourself with someone who is directly aligned AGAINST Martin Luther King, then I would argue that you are pretty much anti-King, and anti-Civil Rights.
The truth of the matter is that Hillary Clinton’s camp never thought Barack Obama would be a threat. She never expected African Americans to start asking the hard questions, since we usually ask the easy ones. Perhaps she felt that she could continue to deceive people of color and that none of us would ever actually read her memoirs. Barack Obama was sure to be similar to Jesse Jackson, who ran a very powerful campaign, but was not quite able to transcend race and obtain such overwhelming support from Americans of many backgrounds.
Even more telling is the fact that Hillary Clinton asked Wellesley College to seal her Senior Thesis and make it unavailable to the public. Every Senior Thesis written at Wellesley for the past 100 years has been made available, except for the one written by Senator Clinton. If we can question what Kindergarten Barack Obama attended, then perhaps we should have the right to read Hillary Clinton’s Senior Thesis. Maybe we can all learn to become “Goldwater Girls”, since that seems to be the best way to celebrate Martin Luther King’s legacy.
Last month, Barack Obama, still a black man (as he was in 1963), raised more money than any other presidential candidate in American history. The amount, $32 Million dollars, was so great that the Clinton camp refused to release its own numbers. This reminds me of episodes of Animal Planet, when the lion’s roar is so strong, the other animals just whimper, drop their heads and slowly walk away.
Clinton’s alliance with Goldwater is not just disturbing because of the racism. It also reminds us of the ruthlessness of many American politicians. When hearing the annoying bark of a nearby French poodle, Barry Goldwater yelled "Throw that damn dog in the incinerator and turn it on!" When asked who the dog belonged to, Goldwater replied, "No – my wife's. We're waiting for him to die."
These words might remind some of the morally reprehensible actions of Michael Vick. Instead, the words remind me of one of Goldwater’s staunchest, proudest and most ruthless supporters, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Dr. Boyce Watkins is a professor at Syracuse University and the author of "What if George Bush were a Black Man?" He does regular commentary in national media, including CNN, ESPN, CBS, BET and other networks. For more information, please visit www.BoyceWatkins.com

Why Did Toni Morrison Call Bill Clinton the First Black President?

Some are questioning the intelligence and judgement of writer Toni Morrison. In a 1998 article for The New Yorker, Morrison named Bill Clinton the "first black president" by stating that he possesses a long list of characteristics possessed by black people. In Morrison's words, she claimed that Clinton possesed "almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas."

Some have argued that Morrison's characterization of Clinton was both flawed and insulting to African-Americans. Given the diversity of people of color, Morrison has been regularly challenged on the idea that she simply felt that the fact that Clinton was a poor man as a child implies that he serves as a suitable presence for African-Americans in the White House.

An equally confusing notion put forth in Morrison's essay is the idea that African-Americans cannot hope to have a real black president. Instead, they must accept a white male substitute for the job.

In the same essay, Morrison went on to argue that Clinton's attacks during the Monica Lewinsky scandal could be compared to the plight of black men in the criminal justice system. “The message was clear: ‘No matter how smart you are, how hard you work, how much coin you earn for us, we will put you in your place . . .’”

Morrison referred to Clinton's prosecution as a "lynching", further accentuating her comparison of Bill Clinton's experience with that of African-American males.

When Death Comes Knocking: The Reality of HIV

I learned a long time ago that when death comes knocking, there’s nowhere to hide. When the AIDS epidemic hit and spread faster than a prostitute’s legs, I remember feeling a sense of panic and urgency. Panic, because the disease affected anyone and everyone. And urgency due to an overwhelming desire to know. Like most people, I was scared…more like horrified at the thought of possibly having contracted a deadly disease due to something I had done.
I’ll never forget the day that Ervin “Magic” Johnson announced on national television that he was HIV positive. My heart sank, and I cried so hard my tear ducts became dry. Although I was devastated by the news, I couldn’t help but think about my uncle. My uncle was an openly gay male. I became physically ill thinking that he could be infected with the virus that causes AIDS.
A few years later, my fear became a reality. Not for me, but for my uncle. I remember that he had quit his job and moved to the same city as me. When I saw him, there was something different about him. Not only did he physically look different, he started behaving with a true sense of urgency. Although he never confided in me about his condition, I believe he knew that he was terminally ill. The truth was he was in denial. It wasn’t until he began to experience flu-like symptoms that he went to the hospital. That’s when the doctor confirmed that he had full-blown AIDS. Even then, he was ashamed and full of remorse. He didn’t want the family to know, especially his nieces.
Not long after my uncle turned thirty-two, the virus began to take over his body. An MRI revealed that he had a mass on his brain, which impacted his speech and ability to walk. After being confined to a wheelchair and requiring the constant care of a nurse, he was placed in hospice.
“Your uncle died today,” were the words my mother left on my voicemail.
I felt as if someone had sucker-punched me in the gut and left me winded. An invisible vacuum must have sucked the air out of the room, because I thought I was going to suffocate. It didn’t matter that his chances for survival were bleak. I refused to accept his prognosis. I fasted, prayed and pleaded with God for a miracle. There was no miracle, and I was grief-stricken.
The same morning that I received the news about my uncle’s demise, I got dressed, crying all the while, and went to work. After running a red light, I nearly joined my uncle. Because of my tears flowing like a river, my vision was blurred. I arrived at the office, eyes red and puffy, and went to my desk. I couldn’t stop crying. Unable to concentrate, I went back home.
Admittedly, I was having a difficult time. Later that evening, while sobbing in my pillow, I felt my hair being lifted off my shoulders and plop back down. Immediately, I stopped balling and looked around the room. No one was there. I didn’t feel afraid. Rather, there was a comforting presence. Suddenly, I heard my uncle’s voice as clearly as if he were standing in the same room as me.
“Little niece, don’t cry for me,” he said. “I’m happier than I’ve ever been. Now stop crying and go put some ice on your eyes.”
Although I missed him terribly, the grief became more bearable. Having that encounter helped me to understand that we are spiritual beings having a physical experience. Energy doesn’t die, it transcends. At his funeral, I shared my experience. Later, I found out that lots of people were comforted by my testimony.
For a while, I had vivid dreams about my uncle. I even participated in AIDS Walk Atlanta. I didn’t want other people to go through what my uncle went through.
Ten years has passed since my uncle died, and AIDS is still an epidemic. Recently, I visited his gravesite for the first time since his burial. I introduced him to my four-year old daughter, his great-niece. I realized that I really did introduce them because a few months later, my daughter came to me with her notebook in hand. She had drawn a picture of her uncle. She didn’t know his name, or at least she didn’t tell me. In her artwork, the man had long hair and wore a crown. She proceeded to tell me that he was no longer with us and that he wanted to be a girl. My jaw dropped. I was shocked and skeptical at first. Then she informed me that while he was in high school, he wore a dress. After high school, he got married to a boy.
Everything she said was true, but she had no way of knowing any of it, unless he had told her. My daughter is young, and I’ve never had a discussion with her, or around her, about same-sex relationships. Thankfully, she wasn’t afraid and neither was I, especially when she told me that he hugged her.
Hearing about my daughter’s encounter with our deceased uncle reminded me that there is still so much work to do regarding combating HIV/AIDS. It amazes me that although the media has done a good job bringing awareness to the disease, so many people are still getting infected. I feel as though I have been personally commissioned to help eradicate this pandemic. Each and every life lost to AIDS related complications is too many. We need to do everything we can to stop the spread of this horrific disease. If anyone thinks that HIV/AIDS is limited to homosexuals, intravenous drug users or morally corrupt individuals, think again.
The United States vital statistics found on the “Until There’s a Cure” Web site suggest otherwise. The following stats are disturbing.
 An estimated one million people are currently living with HIV in the United States, with approximately 40,000 new infections occurring each year.
 70 percent of these new infections occur in men and 30 percent occur in women.
 By race, 54 percent of the new infections in the United States occur among African Americans, and 64 percent of the new infections in women occur in African American women.
 75 percent of the new infections in women are heterosexually transmitted.
 Half of all new infections in the United States occur in people 25 years of age or younger.
The worldwide statics are even more alarming.
 Over 22 million people have died from AIDS.
 Over 42 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, and 74 percent of these infected people live in sub-Saharan Africa.
 Over 19 million women are living with HIV/AIDS.
 By the year 2010, five countries (Ethiopia, Nigeria, China, India, and Russia) with 40 percent of the world's population will add 50 to 75 million infected people to the worldwide pool of HIV disease.
 There are 14,000 new infections every day (95 percent in developing countries). HIV/AIDS is a "disease of young people" with half of the 5 million new infections each year occurring among people ages 15 to 24.
 The UN estimates that, currently, there are 14 million AIDS orphans and that by 2010 there will be 25 million.
No one deserves to contract HIV/AIDS, regardless of their lifestyle. When death comes knocking, it doesn’t care about age, race, nationality, religion, sexual preference, gender or social status. What will you do to make a change?