Keith Boykin, longtime blogger, recently suspended his blog to edit the Daily Voice, another site aimed at providing news and opinion to middle- and upper-class African-Americans online. It’s actually a good site though it could use a little more Web 2.0 flava. There’s a lot going on over there though and I recommend it, including this article on How the Clintons Lost The Black Vote by Kia Gregory.

What caught my attention this morning was Boykin’s piece called simply Clinton Owes Obama An Apology. As a former Clinton loyalist, I can imagine this was difficult to write. Like many black people, I too went on a journey at the beginning of the campaign. I started out fond of the Clintons and their strong relationship with the black community and suspicious of the newcomer Barack Obama, whom I’d scarcely heard of. Hillary Clinton’s “strategy” succeeded in repulsing/alienating me at the same time Obama’s audacity began to surprise and inspire me.

When I talk to Clinton supporters now, they wince when her name is mentioned. They almost apologize for their support. They talk about “experience” and when I say “which experience — running a racist campaign, being wrong on Iraq, being weak on illegal wiretapping — which appeals most to you”? — they either backpedal nervously or come out swinging with defensive, illogical bluster.

Even my moms after the Geraldine Ferraro flap was exhausted and dispirited at the effort to keep defending Clinton to herself and to me. She’s still behind her girl, but one more Ferraro-like episode from Clinton or a surrogate and it will be “game over”, I know. Even Howard Dean has stepped forward to call publicly for the Clintons to back down and STFU. Though the message is directed at both, we all know whose behavior he’s really addressing.

Boykin stops short of endorsing Obama. He does however have some carefully chosen words for his former boss’s um, wife. His disappointment and pained anger reflects the feelings of many African-Americans (emphasis mine):

I’ve had it with the Clintons.

The past few months I’ve tried to defend Bill and Hillary Clinton against some of the more unreasonable attacks from their critics. Just last weekend on CNN’s Ballot Bowl, I defended Bill Clinton when critics accused of him of questioning Barack Obama’s patriotism. The critics may have misinterpreted Clinton’s remarks, I said, giving the former president the benefit of the doubt.

I’ve also defended Barack Obama in recent weeks against unreasonable charges directed at him because of his association with his church and his pastor. It seems obvious to me that Barack Obama loves his country and is not an anti-white bigot.

Maybe I’m too close to the two Democrats to be against either one. I went to law school with Barack Obama and worked in the Clinton White House, so I have connections and allegiances to both candidates. That’s why I’ve never understood the rabid Hillary haters or the angry Obama opponents. To me, all three candidates — including John McCain — are good and decent Americans who have served their country with distinction.

I wish Hillary Clinton would acknowledge that fact too.

[...insert tragic list of Hillary's recent sins against black people...]

She ought to be ashamed. A month ago she stoked the fears that Obama might be a Muslim and now she plays on the fears of Pennsylvanians that the Illinois senator is a radical black Christian. I would expect that kind of nonsensical fear mongering from a Republican, but I’m disappointed when it comes from a fellow Democrat.

Even John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has acknowledged that Clinton and Obama are both honorable Americans. When a conservative radio host attacked Obama at a Cincinnati McCain rally last month, the Arizona senator stood up for his Democratic opponents and apologized for the attack. “I have repeatedly stated my respect for Senator Obama and Senator Clinton,” he said and promised to “treat them with respect.” That was much classier than Hillary Clinton’s comments on Jeremiah Wright.

As a New Yorker, I have been proud of Hillary Clinton’s service in the Senate, and I harbor no ill will toward her. If she somehow manages to wrangle the nomination from Obama, I will actively support her general election campaign. But I cannot remain silent any longer while my own senator destroys the Democratic Party, and her own reputation, in a desperate and degrading effort to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

It’s time for Senator Clinton to act like a leader that I know she can be. Hilary Clinton not only needs to defend Barack Obama, she needs to apologize to him.

I’ll go further. It’s time for Hillary Clinton to step down and concede if not for the sake of the nation and the Democratic party — then if nothing else, to preserve what’s left of her family’s reputation.

That’s why I just now signed the Afrosphere’s Petition to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee urging Clinton to concede defeat based on the grounds that she cannot win and that her candidacy of vanity and ego threatens democracy in America. I am the 1121th signer. Please join me. Here’s the text of the petition.

To: Senator Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee

Senator Hillary Clinton Must Concede Defeat and Support the Democratic Presidential Ticket

The signatories to this statement urge that Senator Hillary Clinton must concede defeat in her quest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination and must support the Democratic ticket.

Wherefore:

(1) The Democratic Party base has spoken. The delegate count shows that Senator Hillary Clinton cannot win the nomination on the strength of earned delegates, based on the will of the voters.

(2) Mrs. Clinton’s political attacks upon Senator Barack Obama have increasingly appealed to and sought to increase resentment against others based on the color of their skin.

(3) This divisiveness is regrettable because, via the presidential candidacy of Senator Obama, the vast majority of African-Americans stand united with millions of white Americans and Americans of all colors, genders, ethnicities and religious backgrounds, erasing divisions to implement a program of Democratic change.

(4) It appears that Mrs. Clinton is about to shatter this historic unity.

(5) We therefore call on Mrs. Clinton to face the reality of the earned delegates count, concede defeat, and thereby contribute to healing a wound which is opening and continues to widen.

(6) Mrs. Clinton must wholeheartedly support the winner of the nomination, who has earned the most delegates, and devote herself honestly and enthusiastically to defeating Republican electoral hopes in 2008, not attacking Democratic politicians and Democratic constituencies.

(7) Should the Democratic Party leadership nullify the people’s votes by giving Mrs. Clinton the nomination, despite the popular will as represented by earned delegates, we would then call upon African-American voters and all Democratic Party constituencies and supporters to withhold their support from a Hillary Clinton candidacy in November. We have survived eight years under President Bush and, if compelled to do so, we will survive four years under a President McCain. However, we cannot and will NOT survive the nullification of our most hard-won right – our votes.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

Today’s Forecast

28 Mar 2008

… calls for heavy sniper fire with 60 percent chance of canceled welcoming ceremonies. Citizens be advised: pack lots of empty rhethoric.

I’ve got to check brotha Darian Dauchan out in NYC sometime. hat tip to ThatPoshGirl on Daily Kos for finding this. Artists see and say things much more clearly than a lot of us.

I proudly present, “Damn You Barack Obama, You Pretty Motha Fu**er”



Hat tip: HuffingtonPost.com

Supplier Under Scrutiny on Arms for Afghans
By C. J. CHIVERS
Published: March 27, 2008
This article was reported by C. J. Chivers, Eric Schmitt and Nicholas Wood and written by Mr. Chivers.

Since 2006, when the insurgency in Afghanistan sharply intensified, the Afghan government has been dependent on American logistics and military support in the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

But to arm the Afghan forces that it hopes will lead this fight, the American military has relied since early last year on a fledgling company led by a 22-year-old man whose vice president was a licensed masseur.

With the award last January of a federal contract worth as much as nearly $300 million, the company, AEY Inc., which operates out of an unmarked office in Miami Beach, became the main supplier of munitions to Afghanistan’s army and police forces.

Since then, the company has provided ammunition that is more than 40 years old and in decomposing packaging, according to an examination of the munitions by The New York Times and interviews with American and Afghan officials. Much of the ammunition comes from the aging stockpiles of the old Communist bloc, including stockpiles that the State Department and NATO have determined to be unreliable and obsolete, and have spent millions of dollars to have destroyed.

In purchasing munitions, the contractor has also worked with middlemen and a shell company on a federal list of entities suspected of illegal arms trafficking.

Moreover, tens of millions of the rifle and machine-gun cartridges were manufactured in China, making their procurement a possible violation of American law. The company’s president, Efraim E. Diveroli, was also secretly recorded in a conversation that suggested corruption in his company’s purchase of more than 100 million aging rounds in Albania, according to audio files of the conversation.

This week, after repeated inquiries about AEY’s performance by The Times, the Army suspended the company from any future federal contracting, citing shipments of Chinese ammunition and claiming that Mr. Diveroli misled the Army by saying the munitions were Hungarian.

Mr. Diveroli, reached by telephone, said he was unaware of the action. The Army planned to notify his company by certified mail on Thursday, according to internal correspondence provided by a military official.

But problems with the ammunition were evident last fall in places like Nawa, Afghanistan, an outpost near the Pakistani border, where an Afghan lieutenant colonel surveyed the rifle cartridges on his police station’s dirty floor. Soon after arriving there, the cardboard boxes had split open and their contents spilled out, revealing ammunition manufactured in China in 1966.

“This is what they give us for the fighting,” said the colonel, Amanuddin, who like many Afghans has only one name. “It makes us worried, because too much of it is junk.” Ammunition as it ages over decades often becomes less powerful, reliable and accurate.

AEY is one of many previously unknown defense companies to have thrived since 2003, when the Pentagon began dispensing billions of dollars to train and equip indigenous forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Its rise from obscurity once seemed to make it a successful example of the Bush administration’s promotion of private contractors as integral elements of war-fighting strategy.

But an examination of AEY’s background, through interviews in several countries, reviews of confidential government documents and the examination of some of the ammunition, suggests that Army contracting officials, under pressure to arm Afghan troops, allowed an immature company to enter the murky world of international arms dealing on the Pentagon’s behalf — and did so with minimal vetting and through a vaguely written contract with few restrictions.

In addition to this week’s suspension, AEY is under investigation by the Department of Defense’s inspector general and by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, prompted by complaints about the quality and origins of ammunition it provided, and allegations of corruption.

Rest of article is HERE.

As we move past 4,000 soldiers dead……………..
Tens of thousands permanently maimed…………………
A TRILLION DOLLARS in costs…………….

ALL based on LIES…..

Reading stories about war profiteers like this just makes the blood boil.

Crooks all.

Hillary ” Tonya Harding” Clinton’s claim that she’s the most ‘transparent’ candidate is about as accurate as her Bosnia LIE.

She says that she’s been vetted.

The truth is, she hasn’t been vetted AT ALL.

I’ve said, for some time, one of my main reasons for supporting Barack Obama is his plans for transparency in government…something that Hillary ” Tonya Harding” Clinton does NOT share.

How could she?

When she won’t come clean about
1. Taxes
2. Earmarks

Hat tip: Daily Dish

What Hillary Is Hiding
Her tax records, pork…
By Amanda Kathryn Hydro

“I think I’m probably the most transparent person in public life,” Sen. Hillary Clinton recently declared.

Much like her husband’s infamous Monica Lewinsky testimony, in which then-President Bill Clinton haggled, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” Hillary’s claim depends on what her definition of “transparent” is.

If Sen. Clinton thinks she’s transparent now that thousands of pages of scheduling records from her days as first lady have been released — because the group Judicial Watch and others sued to have them made public — sure, she’s transparent.

And if not disclosing her sources of income and sharing her tax returns since leaving the White House equals transparency, then yes, those Clintons are one transparent couple. On government disclosure forms, Sen. Clinton reports they have assets worth somewhere between $10 million and $50 million. That’s a lot of paid speeches and book sales. For a point of contrast, Sen. Barack Obama’s reported belongings, on the same disclosure forms, are worth between $456,000 and $1.1 million.

How have the Clintons amassed most of their wealth since leaving the White House? Where did that $5 million that Sen. Clinton pumped into her own campaign earlier this year come from? Who has donated to the presidential library’s coffers?

If Sen. Clinton really were the “most transparent” public official in the country, we’d know the answers to these questions. Instead her campaign hems and haws and says they’ll try to release some tax returns on or around April 15.

And then there’s the transparency that every taxpayer is interested in: How is Sen. Clinton spending our tax dollars?

The Los Angeles Times reports “Clinton has earmarked more than $2.3 billion in federal appropriations for projects” since joining the Senate. The Times also points out that it’s lucrative to be a Clinton contributor, reporting, “Since taking office in 2001, Clinton has delivered $500 million worth of earmarks that have specifically benefited 59 corporations. About 64 percent of those corporations provided funds to her campaigns through donations made by employees, executives, board members or lobbyists.”

Rest of article is HERE.

Who says John McCain doesn’t inspire creativity? The money shot is two minutes in. Thank you YouTube



Hat tip- a reader.

Clinton campaign looks to locals to challenge Obama delegates
03/26/2008
By KELLEY SHANNON / Associated Press

Spurned by the Texas Democratic Party in its effort to stall this weekend’s county conventions, Hillary Clinton’s campaign said Wednesday it is mobilizing caucus supporters and helping those who want to challenge the legitimacy of some Barack Obama delegates.

The Clinton campaign itself won’t challenge Obama’s delegates at the approximately 280 county and state Senate district conventions Saturday, said Clinton state chairman Garry Mauro.

“I have always known the grass roots to generate credentials questions,” he said. “There’s no systematic approach that we’re taking to challenge anybody at any level.”

But the campaign is using a behind-the-scenes strategy. It is giving legal advice to some voters who are mounting challenges and is having volunteer lawyers closely watch the proceedings, Mauro said.

“Are there going to be corrections in mathematical errors? Yes,” he said, describing hypothetical examples of how a local delegate count might be changed.

Obama’s campaign also has people looking closely at delegate counts and individual counties, said spokesman Josh Earnest.

“Our people are there to ensure that the process goes well and not to try to obstruct the process, and hopefully that’s what their people will be doing as well,” Earnest said.

Both campaigns have staffers in Texas to round up supporters and hold training sessions before Saturday’s convention caucuses.

Hundreds of thousands of people attended Texas Democratic precinct caucuses after the party’s primary concluded March 4. Those caucuses began the selection of 67 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention. The next step is the county conventions this weekend, which will pick delegates to the state convention in June.

The candidate with the most supporters signing in at each convention level will benefit in the awarding of caucus delegates.

Last week, the state Democratic Party refused a request from Clinton’s campaign to postpone county conventions and take extra steps to verify the signatures of election night caucus-goers.

Rest of Article is HERE.

From the beginning, she has attempted to de-legitimize the Caucus part of the Texas voting process.

Just keeping you up-to-date on her chicanery.

Thank God for Democracy Now.

Amy Goodman had on Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher. His has a new book out called, So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits—and the President—Failed on Iraq. In all the retrospective coverage going on covering the five years of this unnecessary war, few in the media have bothered to look in the mirror and take the due blame for driving this country to war.

We had the largest demonstrations in the history of the planet trying to stop this madness, yet few listened. The newspapers and broadcast and cable news outlets almost universally banned any voice that challenged the idea that Iraq was something we needed to do. Media outlets and personalities that fancy themselves critical of the war or the administration now, were the worst kind of journalists when we really needed them.

It’s easy to criticize Bush now. It’s the hackiest thing you can do. It’s easy to criticize the war, but when it really counted — before we sent people in — most of these idiots had nothing to say. They created a very hostile environment for our politicians to do the right thing, and for this complicity in war propaganda, they need to be held forever accountable.

We should remember that these same media outlets are the ones driving the coverage and narrative of our current election. In general, they cannot be trusted. Their agenda is not our agenda. If they could help pull off the overthrow of a government, leading to the collapse of a society, the death of hundreds of thousands and the draining of the treasuries of two nations, what interest do you think they have in a substantive mediation of this presidential election? That’s right. None.

I’m as guilty as anyone of continuing to prop up these grossly negligent entities, but they’ve not learned their lesson, and I will try as much as possible to avoid validating them. This means more linking to alternative and perhaps local media, for example.

Charlie Rangle made news years ago for proposing a military draft, as a way to spread the burden of this war more widely across society and, in so doing, end the war. I offer a more modest proposal: a military draft for elected officials and the media. If it were their kids and family members going off to commit crimes against another people, going off to get disfigured by an unjust and wasteful effort, you can bet we would not be where we are today.

Check out Goodman’s interview with Mitchell below. Tell us what you think.



Super duper big up to Booman Tribune

Also check this Atlantic piece on Hillary’s religion.

Clipped from Booman:

But Barack Obama has not made Clinton’s kooky right-wing church into an issue on the campaign trail because he understands that a person’s faith is an intensely personal and (hopefully) non-political affair.

Clinton’s decision to question Obama’s choice of church is a bigger problem than her personal tastelessness. Her decision is an arrow aimed directly at the heart of the black community. It is one of the worst acts of public betrayal I have ever seen committed by a Democratic politician in my lifetime, and the most shortsighted and toxic decision I can recall.

White Americans may be surprised by their introduction to the style of black sermonizing in the figure of Rev. Wright, but the black community sees nothing particularly out of place in his rhetoric. This may or may not be a political vulnerability in the general election, but a far greater vulnerability is opened up by telling the black church-going community that Rev. Wright is the equivalent of Don Imus and his ‘nappy-headed hos’. The suggestion that Rev. Wright was engaged in ‘hate speech’ of a kind so loathsome as to require leaving his church is deeply offensive. The black community is feeling besieged by the national spotlight on Rev. Wright and the ensuing white backlash. They are looking around for allies, and find Hillary Clinton piling on and throwing them under the bus.

Clinton is not only presumptuous, she is vicious and divisive and hurtful. She should be defending Barack Obama against unfair attacks, and defending and contextualizing the tradition of black sermonizing. In his speech, Barack Obama sought to educate and bring reconciliation. Clinton’s response is to throw it all back in his face and suggest that there is something wrong with him for attending his church.

If Clinton succeeds in pushing this racial polarization to the point that white people will not vote for Obama, the black community will never, ever, forgive her. This is especially true because she can only win on the backs of the superdelegates.

At this point it is absolutely imperative that the party leaders step in and stop the Clinton campaign from inflicting lasting damage to the relationship between the party and the African-American community. She cannot be allowed to even try to win the nomination this way, let alone actually win it.

This is poison of the worst possible kind. It will destroy the party’s electoral viability more swiftly and more surely than anything I can think of.

I call on Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, Chairman Dean, and the other leaders of the party top step in right now and call this contest.

The Clintons absolutely must not be permitted to do this. It must be stopped.

It’s great to see this story finally spreading beyond the afrosphere.

Ok, next steps…

Speaker Pelosi’s contact information.

In your messages to her and her staff, be sure to thank her for standing strong during this campaign. It can’t be fun getting threats from Clinton supporters. And recall a few weeks ago when Pelosi dismissed the so-called “dream ticket” by saying Clinton nixed that possibility by promoting McCain.

Harry Reid’s contact information.
Howard Dean’s contact information.

Courtesy of MoveOn. Donna Edwards is one of the judges. Entries due April 1.



Paul Krugman, February 11, 2008:


I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. >I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.

Gallup Poll, March 26, 2008:



PRINCETON, NJ — A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

That is all.

From DailyKos:

Clinton big dollar donors threaten Pelosi and the DCCC
by kos
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:52:01 PM PDT

Certain people still think they can bully politicians by waving their checkbooks in their faces.

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the US House of Representatives

Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madame Speaker,

As Democrats, we have been heartened by the overwhelming response that our fellow Democrats have shown for our party’s candidates during this primary season. Each caucus and each primary has seen a record turnout of voters. But this dynamic primary season is not at an end. Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes.

We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes. We are writing to say we believe your remarks on ABC News This Week on March 16th did just that.

During your appearance, you suggested super-delegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd , whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2. This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984 as well as your own comments recorded in The Hill ten days earlier:

“I believe super-delegates have to use their own judgment and there will be many equities that they have to weigh when they make the decision. Their own belief and who they think will be the best president, who they think can win, how their own region voted, and their own responsibility.’”

Super-delegates, like all delegates, have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party’s strongest nominee. Both campaigns agree that at the end of the primary contests neither will have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. In that situation, super-delegates must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party’s strongest nominee in the general election.

We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.

Sincerely,

Marc Aronchick
Clarence Avant
Susie Tompkins Buell
Sim Farar
Robert L. Johnson
Chris Korge
Marc and Cathy Lasry
Hassan Nemazee
Alan and Susan Patricof
JB Pritzker
Amy Rao
Lynn de Rothschild
Haim Saban
Bernard Schwartz
Stanley S. Shuman
Jay Snyder
Maureen White and Steven Rattner

The Obama campaign responds:

“This letter is inappropriate and we hope the Clinton campaign will reject the insinuation contained in it. Regardless of the outcome of the nomination fight, Senator Obama will continue to urge his supporters to assist Speaker Pelosi in her efforts to maintain and build a working majority in the House of Representatives,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

One side is looking to build a consensus and win on the strength of voters, the other side is looking to divide and harm the party. It’s easy to see which is which.

When people say that Dems can kiss and make up, I don’t know about that.

Because, at the heart of this battle is what you want the Democratic Party to look like.

What you believe it should be.

I believe Hillary ” Tonya Harding” Clinton, her donors, and the DLC are parasites that have been sucking the life of what Democrats should stand for. They are TOP DOWN.

Barack Obama is of the vision of BOTTOM-UP. Barack Obama is the one who believes in the 50 State Strategy. That all Democrats are worth fighting for, even in the red states. That you plant seeds in order for them to grow in subsequent elections.

What do you believe in?

50% +1

or

50 State

That’s what this battle has become, and I’m glad that they’re being obvious about it. THE EXTORTION of it all.

If you’d like to drop a line to Nancy Pelosi:

Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-0100

About Jeremiah Wright, Hillary ” Tonya Harding” Clinton had this to say:


“He would not have been my pastor,” Clinton said. “You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.”

************************************************************

Ahem.

This is what our fellow blogger, Field Negro had to say:

Today again the “Ice Queen” took a shot at the “O” man and suggested that he should have left his church. “We don’t have a choice when it comes to our relatives, we have a choice when it comes to our Pastor.” Maybe you can “Ice Queen”, but black folks just don’t go switching their church. Maybe that’s how you white folks do shit, but religion is personal to black people. As a black man I take that shit personally when you attack the black church to make a political point. And when you do it for political expediency to deflect the news from your own little problems. “Oh stop it field, you don’t even go to church”. Yes but I understand that importance of the church in our community, and, unlike moi, most black folks do go to church and believe in the institution it represents. So the longer this shit goes on with the “O” man’s pastor, the more upset I get. If Hillary had a clue she would have left that shit alone. Her husband is supposed to be the “first black president”, they should know that there are certain things that we hold sacred and just should not be fucked with.

——————————————————–

And here is my reply. A reply that goes to heart of why the attacks on Jeremiah Wright are offensive and personal to Black people.
——————————————————–

Thank you, FN.

I have been making the rounds of ‘ MSM’ Blogs to make this point.

There was a Rasmussen Poll done on Wright.

Poll on Wright

Here’s the money section for me:

Overall, voters are evenly divided as to whether Obama should resign his membership in the Church—42% say that he should while 40% disagree. White voters, by a 46% to 33% margin, say that Obama should leave the Church. African-American voters, by a 68% to 16% margin, say he should not. Wright retired last month as Pastor of the Church.

While there was a 13 point difference FOR among Whites, look at the gap among Blacks – 52%.

52% AGAINST.

Why?

Church isn’t some simple place where you go on Sunday to listen to the pastor for 30 minutes.

Church, in the Black Community, is all about COMMUNITY.

It’s why, it’s literally an all-day affair.

Black people do not change churches like they do purses. I am in my 30′s, and outside of school, I’ve had exactly 2 church homes in my life. It took nearly 2 years to find the second one, but I found it. Commitment to a church isn’t something that’s done fly-by-night. It’s not some fleeting commitment. It is a given that you will find something that you don’t like about any church you attend; which is why it is the general COMMUNITY that will ultimately make that decision.

The Black Church is the ONLY institution, in the history of The United States of America, which, from its conception,

Validated, Supported, Incubated, and Treasured.

BLACK HUMANITY.

Period.

Don’t think I’m correct, then name me another institution which has done so.

The attack on Trinity is seen as an attack on the Black Church, and thus, by extension, an attack on the Black Community as a whole.

During times of slavery and Jim Crow, the Black Church was what reinforced Community.

Post Civil Rights and Integration, the Black Church is now what brings Community together, considering that the Black Community, like the rest of America, is becoming more stratified along the lines of class. The Black Church is really the only place in Black America where you will consistently find the doctor and welfare mother in the same building, with the same purpose. It’s the place to break down those walls of class that are building up.

To disown Wright and Trinity would be to disown the Black Community itself, which is why Obama said in his speech he couldn’t. He understood that fundamentally about the Black Community, and he understood that political expediency would mean the doubting of the existence of his soul by the Black community. Obama would never be trusted again by Black folk if he had disowned Wright & Trinity. Even Black folk that don’t go to church understand that you don’t mess with the Black Church – it’s just not done.

And the Handkerchief Head Mammy that Clinton has running her campaign KNOWS THIS.

hat tip daily kos which linked to this Time piece.

from DHinMI on kos:

This could be a really devastating line of attack against Clinton. First, it undermines her claims of experience, which is supposed to be why she’s “ready to lead on day one.” If you can wipe out the main argument for her candidacy, she’s destroyed.

Furthermore, these criticisms raise serious questions about her electability. This is the question she’s trying to raise about Obama, but for anyone who was sentient in 2000, these exaggerations and fabrications should evoke memories of Al Gore fending off the “flip flop” charges and looking silly as he was accused of plenty of silly comments he never made, like claiming to have discovered Love Canal or having invented the internet. Of course, the press exaggerated Gore’s supposed exaggerations. Also, there was no YouTube in 2000 to demonstrate and disseminate an accurate depiction of what Gore said in these instances.

Unlike Gore, who in a few individual instances made ill-advised comments that then got blown out of proportion, Clinton has made the questionable claims numerous times, and has even put some of them on her website, like saying she was involved in the creation or passage of key domestic accomplishments such as SCHIP and the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Nice to see O on offense. Many of us have been calling b.s. on her “35 years” of experience for months. It’s time to bring her down for good. She’s full of it, and she started this crapfest. Time to reap what you’ve sown, Hillary.

From The HuffingtonPost.com

Pastor Of Clinton’s Former Church: Don’t Use Wright To Polarize

A STATEMENT CONCERNING THE REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader
whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for
decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society.
He has been a vocal critic of the racism, sexism and homophobia
which still tarnish the American dream. To evaluate his dynamic
ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave
injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the
African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a
people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and
violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has
been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions
and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us
who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr.
Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize. This is a
critical time in America’s history as we seek to repent of our racism.
No matter which candidates prevail, let us use this time to listen again
to one another and not to distort one another’s truth.

Dean J. Snyder, Senior Minister
Foundry United Methodist Church
March 19, 2008

Well, at least he has principle.

*******
The Tonya Harding Reference is to this ABCNEWS.com report from a Democratic Superdelegate:

The question is — what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it?

What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?

She will have to “break his back,” the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.

“Her securing the nomination is certainly possible – but it will require exercising the ‘Tonya Harding option.’” the official said. “Is that really what we Democrats want?”


Who We Are

Cheryl Contee aka "Jill Tubman", Baratunde Thurston aka "Jack Turner", rikyrah, Leutisha Stills aka "The Christian Progressive Liberal", B-Serious, Casey Gane-McCalla, Jonathan Pitts-Wiley aka "Marcus Toussaint," Fredric Mitchell

Special Contributors: James Rucker, Rinku Sen, Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, Adam Luna, Kamala Harris

Technical Contributor: Brandon Sheats




Sponsors

Advertise here!

Obamacare – Get Some


Archives

Peep ‘Em

I Am A Community Organizer (300x243)

Community Activity



Black Behind Coverage/Disclaimer

This is a personal weblog which does not represent the views of the authors' employers, clients nor vendors.

Ain’t Like All The Rest

Jack and Jill Politics is not affiliated with Jack and Jill of America, Jack and Jill Magazine, "Jack and Jill Went Up the Hill to Fetch a Pail of Water" nor any of the other Jack and Jills out there on the Google. Just so's you know.
Bitnami