I had written about this on another post but I decided that it is also relevant here so I included it on this thread also.

In the 1930s, there was a shift in African American allegiance from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party. Many factors contributed to this shift. The flood of 1927 and the negligence of the Hoover administration, The Great Depression which lead the African American community into further economic depression and the New Deal which aided many. The need for political upward mobility and the idea of empowerment vs. subordination was another. For these reasons, many in the black community were pushing for blacks to switch their allegiance because it would be in the best interest of their people.

There was much infighting amongst black political leaders and it was very much a generational divide as it is today. Many younger leaders faced opposition from the older more established leaders in the Republican Party. They felt that they should stay in the Republican Party because of their allegiance with the party and the fact that it was the party of Lincoln. They believed this despite the disappointment of the Hoover administration, despite the fact that the Republican Party often did not operate with the best interest of the black community in mind and despite the fact that the Republican Party limited their own political voice and advancement. Many of the established and older black politicians even tried to block the advancement of the younger politicians who were representative of this new thinking. In a book that I once used on this topic, the author writes:

�Younger blacks especially spoke with some disdain for their elders, who were firmly established in the Republican political hierarchy. They painted an unflattering portrait: �handkerchief heads,� they called them-old party warhorses, self-interested, self-satisfied, feeding off the patronage of white political machines and insensitive to the broader concerns of the race.�

Despite the fact that both Clinton and Obama are in the same party, this historical occurrence is very relevant today with what we are seeing with the black establishment breaking for the Clintons. Many never bothered to look into any other candidate preferring to hold onto old allegiances.

. Many looked at Obama with disdain for several reasons, he had the audacity to try and run against Clinton, they did not trust him because he was technically outside the circle and is preaching a different kind of politics, they felt that he may take away from their importance and leverage as the connection between the black electorate and the democratic party amongst other things. The black political establishment is holding onto what can be seen as the Clinton legacy or for some, the Clinton �fairytale� in the same way, those of the black political establishment in the Republican party of the 1930s held on to the legacy of Lincoln.

I�m sorry for the long comment but I have been dying to share this historical parallel that could shed further light on what is going on today.

That is the BEAUTY of being a Super Delegate, when you get to that level of SENIORITY and you are in a UNIQUE position to sway a candidate’s win (Shirley Chisholm, Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton, Al Gore), you also have the RIGHT to look at the PARTY as a Whole and you also have the ability to DEMAND GREATER BENEFITS for your State, District, Organization etc.

In the past, Super Delegates have been able (during National Election years) to get solid DEALS made from candidates that the CBC have not been able to get passed do due to their limited numbers within the Congress.

By holding out until the last minute, Super Delegates stand to have a better position for getting GRANDER DEALS and confirmed DEMANDS that can benefit Black folk than the current unSavy strategy to force a commitment from a candidate. This is why MANY SEASONED DELEGATES have not stated who they are committed to until the end of the whole primary (ie John Edwards, Michael Bloomberg, Al Sharpton, Jimmy Carter, Colin Powell).

I said it once and will continue to say it, THIS IS ALL ENERGY MISDIRECTED.

Explaining this to those unseasoned voters is hard because you’d only get it if you can look at the BIG PICTURE and Understand what will happen next in the end which is THE NATIONAL CONVENTION. When you explain it, and then attacked for being a Hillary supporter, sometimes you just have to sit back and allow people to get it late and expect the calls of “CHEATER” and “FOWL”. It’s not about Obama nor is it about Clinton … its about using your Bargaining Power Effectively.

Yes, I do know the history of the superdelegate system. That’s why I think it should be abolished after this election.

All the superdelegates are being sweated by all kinds of people to go one way or another, so it’s hardly only blacks trying to change the rules only for blacks. The rules haven’t, (I hope) won’t, and shouldn’t change, at least not for this election. Those black elected officials/superdelegates have every right to support who they want. But, I don’t have any leverage in swaying the vote of a superdelegate in Wyoming, now do I?

Why are you critisizing blacks for trying to persuade black superdelegates, and not critisizing whites for doing the same thing?

As an activist, actually a third generation activist, it is important to know the Job Description and Limits of Politicians, I have worked on 6 national elections, a Political Scientist/Economist, and I worked on Capitol Hill back in the day, and did voter registration drives back since the late 80’s so I know what a Super Delegate is and does during National Elections and it is nothing new to me compared to the NEWLY EXCITED people voting today. So when a person challenges me with what I know about Super Delegates and I tell them, I am all of a sudden a Clinton lover because what I say isn’t what they want to hear. THAT IS IGNORANCE personified. The pressuring of the Black delegates is seen as changing the rules. More so, its CHANGING the rules for the Black Politicians and NOT GOING AFTER THE NON-WHITES which is seen as HYPOCRACY.

As for your assumption that I am a Clinton supporter, I guess it never crossed your mind that I could be a McCain or Ralph Nader or John Edward supporter? Regardless of who I support, the real issue is, the energy for going after Black Super Delegates is energy misdirected, what we need to be doing to getting out list of DEMANDS READY for the winner (EVEN FOR OBAMA) so that they don’t get lost in the promises that are OWED to the people BANKROLLING this election. Last I checked the BLACK COMMUNITY wasn’t dropping enough DOLLARS to be at the front of the line.

You’re for Senator Clinton and you’re trying to act “neutral” but it’s just. not. playin.

You’ve been watching too much Faux Noise that you’re now regurgitating that rhetoric.

Those of us who criticize the Clintons are experts at deciphering BS. We’ve had enough experience. At least 16 years of experience in fact.

You want Clinton to win and that’s prerogative.

Own it.

What I am saying is (BLACK) People are jumping on the Bashing of Black Super Delegates without even knowing WHO they are? WHAT their role is? HOW they are suppose to vote? The HISTORY of the Super Delegate. WHY the Super Delegate’s responsibilities are different than the average voter?

When you know the answer to all of these questions and you witness what is happening with the perspective of Super Delegates not falling inline for Obama, it is a violation of their RIGHT.

Also, the Hypocracy to the whole argument is that there are more than just the BLACK SUPER DELEGATES that can effect this election (i.e. Non- Black Super Delegates) and no one is pressuring them as much as the Black Politicians. As such, it it becomes obvious that there is something being done to make a particular group of people make that massive switch.

I ask people these questions questions and i get two responses, I DON’T CARE and I DIDN’T KNOW WHAT. In either case, We Should.

You guys are so good! I love it!

Preach it! Preach it!

Are you actually trying to redbait here? Well I’ll be damned, LOL.

I hope that by this time four years from now, the superdelegate system will have been abolished. However, since it’s here now, we have to deal with it as is. It’s much too late in the 2008 game to change the rules right now, and require an elected official to give their delegate vote to the candidate who won the primary vote in the area they represent. On the other hand, any constituent of any elected offical has the right to attempt to defeat the reelection of their representative if that rep does something they don’t like. That’s not “threatening”. That’s democracy.

“we have a problem which is made worse when someone comes along and tries to reduce people pointing those things out… as people who support/vote for Obama just because he’s Black, like substantive issues aren’t a part of their reasoning which includes the Clinton(s) history of disrespect.

No “WE” don’t. The very least you can do is start from a solid premise. Of course it all went downhill from there.

“a black person who chooses to ignore the race baiting of white politicians is a traitor…”

Traitor or not, when a Black person not only ignores the race-baiting but defenses it in the process of trying to explain it away then we have a problem which is made worse when someone comes along and tries to reduce people pointing those things out about those supporting/voting for a White candidate who disrespects Black people at the drop of a hat.

“My husband apologized for slavery…”

TRANSLATION: “We’ve been good to you nigras.”

No, but a black person who chooses to ignore the race baiting of white politicians is a traitor, politically obsolete and still on the plantation.

This primary season is playing out like a remake of State Property: “You either get down or lay down.”

Support Obama or lose your office the next go round. That’s a threat.

Support Hillary and we will barrage you with calls and angry emails. That’s a threat.

Tavis probably did feel threatened.

Stop the madness.

Most of the people who are being targeted survived Jim Crow and the Civil Rights movement. If they were going to change their minds they would have done it already.

Say it! Woo Hoo!

They have been Judases to THEMSELVES…they have betrayed their own SOULS…Could there be a betrayal more worse than betraying yourself??? There’s no way to rationalize or justify it.

For me, it’s the equivalent of saying, “KEEP ME in muh shackles Massa! LASH muh back one-mo-time Massa! I needs me uh Clinton Mistress to keeps me satisfied.”

Seriously though, watching AA politicians struggle with supporting Barack Obama TODAY is like watching slave factions on a plantation struggle with whether to escape on Harriet Tubman’s Underground Railroad during the 1850s. The House Negroes are clearly the majority of the CBC — the “Don’t rock the boat” types–unfortunately for them, they are discovering that their constituents are “BARACK-THE-VOTE!” TYPES.

And Shazza, my analogy to Judas is appropriate. Did not Jesus preach unity with your fellow brethren? Is NOT Barack preaching unity with your fellow brethren while McCain and Clinton are the DISBELIEVERS who preach disunity and divisiveness???

One last thing Shazza, I do not subscribe to the “Gospel of Judas” which has been thoroughly invalidated. That scripture has not been embraced as true Christian orthodoxy/doctrine. I would not use Benedict Arnold b/c he did NOT betray his own soul. Arnold went to Canada/Great Britain and lived out his days…

JUDAS betrayed HIMSELF and hung himself…just like all these handkerchief heads are doing right now…they are committing political (self-censorship).

I wouldn’t want to wake up in the morning as Stephanie Tubb-Jones and see myself as a (self-censorship…character from “Gone with the Wind”). Let alone let my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren read on the internet in 2077 that their ancestor “chose to stay on the plantation” in 2008.

I disagree. You’re basically saying that the people should shut up and fall in line without question. That’s not democracy, that’s a dictatorship.

What if the issue was something other than this election, like going to war with Iran, or healthcare or unemployment , and a politician’s constituency feels that the politicians’ vote would be detrimental to the community? Why shouldn’t the people challenge these politicians’ on there potential vote(s)? Politicians work for US and we have every right to tell them that if they screw up, they will be fired.

Again I am not endorsing one over the other BUT I still can’t see how a person who exercises their RIGHT to vote should be pressured or threatened to vote a certain way.

Have we not learned anything from our own PAST and EXPERIENCES when Black folk fought to the Right to Vote and those White Americans who wanted to do the RIGHT thing with their Vote and were pressured and threated to do exactly what people are doing to the Super Delegates?

As for being a JUDAS, according to Biblical studies, he was the one that loved Jesus most of all and was told by Jesus to be his “betrayer”. I think for your point you want to use Benedict Arnold. He was a true traitor.

It’s one thing to have been a “clinton supporter.” It’s another thing to have attacked/diminished *O*s ability to lead this country.

In my mind (but more importantly in my heart), AA politicians who have attacked/diminished *O* are Judases who do need to be turned out in the soonest election cycle possible.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080301/D8V4LA080.html

the reporter strides away quite some from the usual wire tone, which makes the read all the more appealing.

‘ave fun.

“Am I mistaken that the point of all this effort is to force the superdelegates to vote according to how their constituents voted in the primaries”?
———————————–
Force?? Come on, snap out of it!

Your game isn’t working!

*My point is that this method of threatening-even in the name of “accountability,” “transparency” or whatever buzz word you want to use-is wrong. That sort of behavior has historically gone on in communist regimes throughout the world, and should have no place here.*

I am not feeling it.

Whether terms *accountability* and *transparency* or *lynching* and *poll tax* are used, these have nothing to do with systems of government. These have to do with methods, ways, and practices of governing.

Given that we live in a participatory democracy, it is up to the folks to make sure the promise of such is kept and ensured. One way to do this is to keep our elected officials accountable — to us. Oh, and yes, we want our elected officials to ensure a transparency in our government. So, of course, we would be asking and advocating and whole lotta else to make sure that this, too is enforced.

I think that you are mistaking movement of jah people as something that polite folks do not partake. Well, the sleeping giant of the electorate may have awakened from a nap and wants to be assured that the business of the people is actually the business of the people.

Black folks have spent too much time in the company of folks who want to demonize aspirations for fairness and justice as some communist plot.

No, no, no.