Listen to the song, kneel before your God, and pray that we are no longer slaves.

What’s most important to me – at least for the future of our people and political power- is that the establishment know that they cannot ever take our votes for granted again.

No more auction block.

2. The individual right to bear arms IS specifically listed in the Constitution.

3. The US is not in Iraq as an occupying power. Iraq has a democratically elected government. Our military is there to serve as a security solution until the country, its government and its military are able to sustain and secure their country.

Yes, we screwed up the peace. We screwed up de-Baathification. We made mistakes. We violated one of Sun Tzu’s tenets in The Art of War: never wake up with more enemies that you had the previous day. Mistakes were made in Iraq, just like they’ve been made in EVERY previous military action that this country’s undertaken.

But at the end of the day, regardless of how and why radical islamists and terrorists got to Iraq, they are there. And their sworn mission-hell, their only reason for existence; what they PRAY for-is to destroy this country and our way of life. That’s not fearmongering, that’s THEIR doctrine.

And we can choose to fight them house to house in Iraq, and wherever else they appear…or we can slug it out with them in our country. While we’ll win in either location, I refuse to vote for ANY candidate-be they a democrat or Republican-that would take the risk of radical islam establishing a foothold in this country. I didn’t serve my country in this war to let that happen, and I refuse to let anyone else to.

If we cut and run in Iraq, we grant creedence to what bin Laden said after the battle of Mogadishu in 1993 (I’m watching Black Hawk Down right now): we become the “paper tiger,” unwilling to finish the job and stay for the long haul.

Do we need a permanent base in Iraq? That is a strategic decision to be made by the President and his military leadership, and NOT by the latest poll.

A question for you (and anyone else who wants to pipe in): I could’ve sworn I heard that Obama would go into Pakistan unilaterally if he knew bin Laden was there. Does this sort of preemptive unilateralism-essentially, the Bush Doctrine in black skin-become valid when YOUR candidate supports it?

1. Just as fellow Republicans did not give Sen. McCain his age, but voters worry about that, too. Is that fair? I don’t think it is. Maybe my mind will change as the general election approaches and I become more partisan, that’s entirely possible, but right now, making such characteristics into political issues is still objectionable politics, like the “illegitimate brown baby” robocalls in the 2000 GOP primary.

2. You’re right, I’m wrong on that one. I had thought the US had ratified the UDHR’s Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It’s about on par with individual ownership of firearms — not a right but a privilege. So I accept that it is not a right, though I think we SHOULD then ratify the Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and we have to ensure that every citizen has an opportunity to be healthy by providing health insurance to all. We provide health coverage to prisoners, we should at least give the same *privileges* to the rest of the citizenry.

3. Accepting that the Iraq War is a part of the War on Terror is misleading. It was not until we invaded and attracted more people against our country. Staying there has festered more violence around the world. Will groups like Al Qaeda and HAMAS still wish for our downfall? Yes. Do we have to give them ammunition by perpetually occupying Arab lands? No.

I also do not think we should set a precedent that a president can lie the nation into a war with doomsday rhetoric and then afterward say the problem the invasion started needs to be damped down, thusly we need to continue the war based on lies in the first place. Does that make sense? I do not want this sort of war happening again and if we continue to sanction it by allowing permanent bases and occupation and accepting the entire conflict as necessary, we’ll be setting just such a precedent. That precedent is MUCH more harmful for us, encouraging perpetual offensive warfare, than withdrawal is, at this point. Either way, we’ve helped al Qaeda regain strength, either we continue to help them regain strength or we don’t. I say we don’t.

On another point, the idea that because a debate over the way we went into the war will be long means it shouldn’t be a factor now is off-base. Why we bombed Iraqi villages and cities, busted down their doors and searched their homes, deposed not only their dictator and his corrupt family members but also many influential people who happened to be a part of his party, (the only one allowed to participate I believe) etc. is important. It’s important to us as the people funding and sanctioning this war and it’s important to the Iraqi people and to the countries in the region who have to take in refugees, spend many resources to secure their borders and plan to grapple either with a vacuum of power or a U.S. pawn complicit in further American aggression. They need to believe that these consequences are undertaken because the mission we are taking in Iraq is noble, and not that it’s the latest reason given by an incompetent administration that wanted war before it knew what that meant.

We can’t just sweep the way we went in under the rug, well maybe we can here because it feels better that way, but it goes toward credibility, integrity, soft power, the ability to affect positive change in other nations without aggressive means and thusly the ability to effectively fight terrorism on multiple fronts with allies of all different types. If we don’t have credible reasons for attacking nations pre-emptively, then when we say we want to fight terrorism and we equate this war with terror, people don’t believe us and they shouldn’t.

Bill Clinton To Go On “Mea Culpa Tour” Of Black Churches
By Eric Kleefeld – February 2, 2008, 3:07PM
The Clinton campaign apparently understands that they need to shore up some African-American support after Bill Clinton’s aggressive campaign rhetoric against Barack Obama in South Carolina — Bill is set to go on a tour of black churches in Los Angeles tomorrow, CNN reports.

“They need to go touch the people like they did before. The bickering they got in in South Carolina must be put aside,” said an unnamed elected official who will accompany Bill on the trip, and who described it as a “mea culpa tour.” “Bill is going to have to come back among those who loved him and he did so much for. He is going to have to do it – I can’t do it for him – and face the voters.”‘

LOL, that’s what I was thinking: Well if they didn’t do nothin, why are they apologizing?

And Clinton was trying to stir up more mess at the debate trying to pit black against brown with her little anecdote about some black guy in GA complaining about latino immigrants taking jobs (a.k.a. Clinton throwing latinos under that campaign bus). I’m glad Obama responded about not scapegoating.

very interesting.

but..but….but….the ‘Progressives’ told me that Massa Bill and Miss Hillary didn’t do nuthin’. They didn’t offend ‘ nobody’….so, why’s he creeping in the churches?

Uh huh.

It was all in our ‘ imagination’.

Once upon a time, I was willing to hold my nose and vote for Hillary.

No more.

From the beginning, her sense of entitlement reeked and pissed me off. She is NOT entitled to be President of the United States because she let that man humiliate her on a worldwide stage. She’s not.

And while, she reeked of the condescention towards Obama with the air of ‘ Who the hell does this Uppity Nigger think he is?’, it was only something other Uppity Niggers like myself would notice. We know all the signs of disrespect.

The moment it crossed the line to the point where I’d NEVER vote for her, was when she began her plan of RACE-BAITING Barack Obama.

It began with Billy Shaheen, and just check with the Clinton Attacks Obama Wiki Incident Page that is linked on the left.

Let me make this as plain as possible for you.

The MOMENT they chose to actively try and racebait Obama, it became BEYOND Obama.

If she is allowed to racebait her way into the Democratic Nomination, then the plan will be set in stone for ANY future Black politician.

I’m Black first, and any political party next. I will NOT be an active participant in helping set the blueprint to handicap future Black politicans. I’m not like those Hispanics in Nevada, that AFTER she attempted to DISENFRANCHISE THEM, they STILL voted for her. No Uncle Ruckus here.

The dismissiveness towards Black folk; the absolute insulting towards my Brothers and Sisters in South Carolina; the arrogance in the ‘ well, you don’t have anywhere else to go’, combine them all, and it adds up to me NEVER voting for her. I’m not shuffling back to the Clinton Plantation.

EVER.

Cab,
Couple of points:

1. Republicans did not give Obama his middle name. It may seem stupid in this forum, but I assure you that to a segment of the American electorate, his name and his history raise concerns.

2. Nowhere in the Constitution is health care listed as a “right” of any American. I have no problem with reforming the current health care system, but let’s also address issues such as chronic disease, instead of just demanding the government-or namely, you and I-pay for people who haven’t been held to a level of responsibility with their health.

3. If we leave Iraq as a broken, torn country, we consign ourselves to defeat. Which means the terrorists win. Whether we should have invaded or not is a discussion which will not be finished until long after we’re dead. But understand that removing our troops before their mission is complete-a mission which was validated by the confirmation votes for GEN Petraeus-is inexplicably tied to our defeat in Iraq, and possibly in the War on Terror as a whole.

Great answer.

I for one am exhausted from enduring the insulting paternalistic interrogations on this and other comment posts. No other constituency is talked down to as black folk regarding their voting decisions.

I have had many political discussions with buddies to try to win them over. Of all the tactics at my disposal, condescension would be the last thing to try.

We know about Clinton; we know about Obama. We definitely know about the republicans. The average reader of this blog is a political junkie.

Please keep this in mind the next time you click “post” whose ostensible intent is to convince some of us to reconsider voting Clinton or (for some of us) to make the unappealing choice to go McCain.

I think having tax cuts that help widen the economic gap and ultimately weaken the economy are bad. I think it should be evident that Reaganomics didn’t work well while Reagan was in office and it’s not doing so now. Doing so especially in a time of war, when we need revenue for the supplies and tools needed for the troops, that to me is disgusting and McCain 1.0 thought the same thing. Too bad McCain 2.0 “evolved his position” on tax cuts for the wealthy.

I think universal health care is a right of free people that our government has abridged for too long. I don’t think “freedom” and “liberty” just mean let corporations run wild on the backs of the people. I think true liberty involves an amount of equity as well, and so unexplained “socialist” fearmongering won’t sway me.

Universal health care would provide massive budgetary savings, lowers premium costs, and can allow MORE choice and portability of medical insurance and coverage than current managed care. So, yeah, hate us horrible tax-and-spend liberals who love to save money and expand choice.

I think the pre-emptive warfare has to be something America has to be more careful and honest about, not just jumping into war without a purpose or on false premises. That obviously did not happen with respect to Iraq and I think we need to leave. I do not like that we invaded Iraq, to be civil about it, and I cannot vote for candidates who want to continue the war in Iraq.

This doesn’t mean that I hate the troops or that I want terrorists to win. I think we’d have National Guard troops that could be in America, ready to protect us in case of any sort of national emergency if we didn’t have this unnecessary war, I think we’d have the troops available to secure Afghanistan and attack Osama bin Laden along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border if we were not engaged in this war, and I think our nation would have more soft power within the Middle East were we not so stubbornly refusing to consider leaving Iraq.

Lastly, the politics of the Republican Party are at least equally disdainful, in my mind, as that of Hillary Clinton. The GOP seems to have no problem with fearmongering, (If you don’t support me, then the country will be attacked again sort of rhetoric for one) nor identity smearing. (Barack HUSSEIN Obama, the madrassa story, calling Hillary the “bitch”, John Edwards the “faggot”, etc.)

There’s more reasons to despise the current crop of GOP candidates and the party, but I wanted just to give you the first few things that came to my mind about this corporatist, fascist, pandering, hateful ideologues that call themselves leaders.

“Some people now think that this was a very clear, open-and-shut case. We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors.” – HRC Los Angeles Democratic Debate

Here is the debate text… http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/01/america/31textdebate.php?page=21

If you didn’t know this was a myth, check out this link… http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1123

None of us turned our backs on the Clintons; the Clintons turned their backs on us. They threw us under the bus, and threw any number of other constituencies under the bus for political expediency. Their strategy is to play the polls tit-for-tat (IRAQ War Vote, ie.), instead of being bold, principled and visionary.

We deserve (and CAN HAVE) better leadership.

Why? Because he is a leader and not some vague “agent of change?”

I’d like to know what exactly is up with the anti-Republican bias. Is it one or more policy beefs, or is it just a hatred of the current administration?

Cause if its the latter, Bush isn’t running again.

Realize that this election is a choice between the reassertment of freedom and democracy as the “last best hope” for this world, and the exchange of that freedom and democracy for vague (in Obama’s case) or outrightly socialist (in Clinton’s) ideas.

Those who would mortgage what this country could be-a stable, secure, strong model of freedom for those who desire it- for their own self interests or a place in history will ultimately find themselves staring at the barrel of a gun…either from those own special interests or from an outside enemy who wants to destroy us.

Let me take note of what you said, because I think I was a little ignorant in my first couple replies.

I do not think the Clinton administration was overall “black” by ANY gracious standards about which we look at black America. Bill Clinton was only “black” if we look at blackness through the corrupted lens of negative stereotypes.

Still, like I said, I think personally that the GOP has such a crock of shit crop of candidates that they need to be defeated. I do not like many of Hillary’s policy positions and I hated her entire campaign tactic and theme to the core, but I do not want another administration like the one we have now. I do not think you do either.

I believe firmly that John McCain or Mitt Romney would be worse for all of us as people and as Americans than both Clintons combined, though they are far and away not the best choice.

(The best choice is Green Party, but who’s counting?)

Maybe I’m believing in a boogeyman or something, but I do not see the Democratic Party and Republican Party as two hands of the same fist, but as two arms of the same body. I believe that if our arm gets stronger than the Right’s, we can make some small-scale but still important changes to the body politic and I cannot let that go.

Speaking for myself only I’d love to have a conversation as to why I think a lot possible Clinton supporters are swearing them off and dismissing them. I’ll do what I can to be civil and respectful and just try to be honest.

First things first, I agree that from what little I know, her staff I believe was the most diverse of any presidential candidate in the major parties. (I don’t know about 3rd parties is all) That is, to me, a great thing, if it belies the sort of campaign she would run, the sort of politics in which she would engage.

Secondly, I sincerely agree with you that Hillary Clinton has gotten a LOT of negative press, and very much of it was unearned. People of the left and right hate them in the media and throughout America. This leads to staunch defenders, of course, but it also has to obviously led to negative biases and negative stories in the press. Chris Matthews comes to mind right off the bat.

—>Now, to go on what may be considered a tangent but is actually important to this discussion, I feel that black voters in particular are known, rightly or wrongly, (I do not have exit polls from Clinton’s 92 and 96 runs) as historically strong Clinton backers. Historically rock-solid, in fact. With this rock-solid base, I believe, there was supposed to be a sort of unwritten social contract, where black America was at least supposed to feel defended by the Clintons and not attacked.

When Barack Obama came into the race, my suspicion is that contract became a tightrope that the Clinton campaign gave up on when Obama took Iowa. They began with the drug smear and the unfounded implication and accusation that Obama SOLD drugs, and then they moved onto repeating right-wing smears of his name and implying he was a Muslim, wrongly.

I don’t have to continue down this path, because not only do I think you know this all already, but there is a wiki already set up on this site that details many of these and other incidents that the Clinton campaign has gone into that culminate in a very distasteful, racially-charged experience that has been almost completely orchestrated and run by the Clinton campaign, while Barack Obama’s campaign has tried, unwittingly to follow up with its own attacks and antics, falling in part to the trap set up for them.

This clearly broke the social contract and left many fellow brothers and sisters confused, unable to understand why the “first black president”, at what seems now to be the climax of this strategy so far, would dismiss the black voters of South Carolina as mere sheeple.

So to me, when you ask why there are so many black bloggers here that are mad at Bill and Hillary so much (and of course it’ll be taken out on Hillary who ostensibly runs her own campaign) that they’re promising not to vote for her, I point to the breaking of what seemed a simple promise — don’t insult us. They did, and so a lot of people are done with them.

So, let me try to say this in a way that answers your comment.

It’s not that these bloggers haven’t tried to understand the Clintons and where they’re coming from.

It’s more like:
A) The Clintons clearly don’t understand black America enough to know that using racial dogwhistle time after time after time were not going to play with black voters who saw a possibly successful black candidate.
B) Black America either knew the Clintons enough to vote for Bill twice, or not enough to know that his Slick Willie tactics could one day reverberate onto one of our own.

I again think it’s to our peril ultimately if we are the deciding vote that allows a GOP president for what’ll probably be 8 more years, but I must say I find it hard to be sympathetic to the cause of having black voters, who have been repeatedly insulted, demeaned, debased and attacked by the Clinton campaign in this cycle (all in the pursuit of victory), suddenly ignore this slander and vote Hillary.

To be plain, there are immensely, earth-shatteringly many hurt feelings. And that’s an important problem for the Clinton team come general election time.