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
26 comments:
Excellent!!!
Pump Up the volume!!!
Raheem Muhammad
Thanks for the info., will research more.
Douglass v. Anthony/Stanton (all over again). Dr. Watkins wants a black man to succeed before a woman who just happens to be white. I understand your concerns on how she treats the Black Man (or perceived black man - remember Obama is biracial and as Senator Biden states he is "clean"). Willie Lynch 1712 states "Crossbreeding n-words mean taking so many drops of good white blood and putting them into as many n-word women as possible, varying the drops by the various tone that you want, and then letting them breed with each other until another circle of color appears as you desire. What this means is this; Put the n-words and the horse in a breeding pot, mix some assess and some good white blood and what do you get? You got a multiplicity of colors of ass backward, unusual n-words, running, tied to a backward ass long headed mules, the one productive of itself, the other sterile. (The one constant, the other dying, we keep the n-word constant for we may replace the mules for another tool) both mule and n-word tied to each other, neither knowing where the other came from and neither productive for itself, nor without each other."
As I state with President Lincoln who was a racist and a slave owner and passed the Emancipation of Proclamation in 1863 to end slavery in the Confederate South and President Johnson (LBJ) being the only President to actually federally end segregation with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Civil Rights Act of 1964, sometimes those who appear to practice racism or have racial tendencies in their upbringing might be the ones who bring forth the most progress for Black Amercia (hence all of America). Why am I bringing this perspective to you? Because as a Christian, we are taught that sometimes appearances and backgrounds do not dictate what they will do. Biblically, Saul persecuted Christians and Jews and Jesus came into this person's life, changed his name to Paul and told him to stop hurting his people who worship him. After that moment, the new "Paul" was a very influential leader of Christianity in biblical times and converted many people's lives to the teachings of Jesus Christ without violence eventhough people looked at his past and told him that he could not make that major change and be effective.
I say this to you to help you, my brother, focus on the true champion we need which is not to only think a perceived black man who reluctantly claims he is for Black America is the only solution for Black America's progress, but to seek one, regardless of race or GENDER, who can generate the RESULTS for Black America in job creation, minimizing the economic gap with whites, legal justice, etc...If it takes a person with a former perceived racist background to do it and get other fellow racists to do it like Lincoln and LBJ, so be it.
Congresswoman Maxine Waters says it best. I was a single black woman who had two children while attending Cal State University. I had hope all my life. I don't need Hope, I NEED HELP! Hillary and her husband Clinton, as they showed in 1992 to 2000, have the connections to make this a reality for Black America, hence All of America.
But, I respect your choice and love to have this debate with you. We shall see who can prevail. My goal is still to see a Clinton-Obama team which will allow all to be the First. First woman president and First Black American Vice President. That way Obama (voted the 2007 most liberal senator) can get the experience and protection he needs to ultimately be the first president of the U.S.
It is going to take another Clinton to clean up the mess after the Second Bush.
Let me ask the peanut gallery. Let's say I finished 4 years of law school and then I announced to the world that I wanted to either be the Dean of the law school or the Chancellor of the University. Would I be qualified for the job?
HELL NO. So, what makes a 3 year Senator from Illinois capable of running as a Commander in Chief, Chief Executive, and Enforcing of the laws of a very complex federal government?
I am not going to be bamboozled as Bush supporters in 2000 did when he ran for president. They stated that you don't have to be SMART to run the U.S. as Presidency and you can have other people do the job. Boy, where we wrong! I learned my lesson. YOU HAVE TO BE QUALIFIED (e.g. knowledgeable and battle tested) to run this country!
It seems to me that the reason that Lincoln and LBJ moved as they did was political pressure. In other words, LBJ would never have moved as he did if there had been no protests, riots, and demonstrations that there would be no peace until there was justice. In other words, HRC was wrong: King and the movement did far more to make civil rights legislation possible, because they forced the politicians (and LBJ was a skilled one) to act. At the least, movements make politicians rethink what would be expedient for them at the time.
And I think it's worth remembering that Bill Clinton abandoned people of African descent on several issues. 1) "Mend don't end" affirmative action... Right, because there were SO many black chancellors and CEOs that our universities and corporations looked like the NBA. 2) Removing Lani Guinier as nominee for US civil rights attorney 3) Refusing to grant Haitian refugees the asylum granted to Cubans. Haitians were the first to occupy Guantanomo, if I'm correct. If this is what the Clinton "connections" get us, no thanks. And I think it's really unfair to assume that anyone (black) who opposes HRC is sexist. I think those black voters who *remember* these moments and consider them betrayals do not like the rightward direction the party took under Bill Clinton and don't want to risk more of the same.
And I would like to note as for the Frederick Douglass vs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton issue... As I recall, the suffragists (many of whom had been abolitionists) were arguing that it was preposterous for ignorant black men to get the vote before white women. Douglass's response, and a good one I think it was, was a practical one. In our patriarchal society, white women usually have access to property, prestige, and protection through white men. In other words, to the extent that they are a father's or husband's property or reflect on his *reputation*, they have value to him.
Douglass said that when white women, as a group, face the vulnerabilities that all black people face, they can assert a need for the franchise as great as that of black men. Douglass did NOT say that black men should vote but no woman of any color should. What he argued, rightly I believe, was that given the exposure of black people to economic and sexual exploitation and their complete lack of recourse, they needed the vote. Since the tradition then was that men voted, the first priority would be getting black people some kind of voice in the political process. I don't think in any sense that Douglass, an advocate of women's suffrage whose second wife was white if I recall, was trying to put white women down in any way. One might have wished both sides had argued for universal auffrage regardless of sex or race. But Douglass never--to my knowledge--said that black men should get the vote because of their shared maleness with white men. It seems to me that he viewed white men as--largely--the population against whom black people needed protection.
So I wouldn't call him sexist in the way that some of the white feminists claimed equality to white men based on shared whiteness.
And to call Obama/Clinton another example of this just seems like typecasting. Just because he is socially defined as a black male and she is a white woman doesn't make it that story again. Why not call it Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? or the Pelican Brief? Or Mandingo? You can't just plop two people in the places because of the census boxes they check off.
Let's look at Bill Clinton's Record and JFK before Obama's shall we before they entered presidency.
Bill Clinton, Governor of Arkansas for 4 to 8 years. Most presidents prior to that had been Governors or military leaders. So Bill fit the Bill.
JFK, senator for 14 years from MA. He had worked in U.S. Congress for that time to know more about how the complex federal govt work.
Obama, senator for 3 years and actually only voted 67% of the time. Okay, I don't know about you, but I really think on FACTS not just b/c someone wants a black man to be president b/c he is inspiring, that the person does not have that much in terms of qualifications to run a COMPLEX FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
But, who is to say, you guys helped or voted to allow Bush, Jr. to be president. Some people said a president doesn't need to be smart to run a country. Well, go ahead and pick Obama after supporting this imbecile. I just know other people would not be bandwagon with these type of qualifications.
Well at least Lincoln and LBJ moved to pass the legislation. Others had political pressure but resisted. So, you can believe this mumbo jumbo about black people doing it themselves or realize it takes a COLLECTIVE EFFORT.
For those who have the ALLUSION OF INCLUSION motif here, check this historic piece out.
http://www.blackwallstreet.freeservers.com/
Check out how people who were against black progress showed their true feelings.
All I say is this, if people just make this a BLACK thing and not realize that together (women, black, brown, yellow, native american) can make progress together against the traditional white male establishment who considers us savages, 3/5 of a person, property.
The Bible says it best "United we stand, divided we fall." Why you focus on showing people's racist background, you are missing that sometimes your enemies can be your allies for the true common cause: Economic, Social and Legal Equality for Black America to all!
I wish you were not scared to announce who you are, "anonymous". You sound like Uncle Ruckus from "The Boondocks". If I have been CEO of my bank for 8 years, do you think my WIFE has the qualifications to take my position?
HRC is claiming 35 years of experience.......WHERE? ABC This Week had HRC on Sunday, and she was asked THREE times for a yes or no answer to whether she would fine or withdraw money from people's checks to pay for her health care plan. Still waiting for an answer.
As for people being able to change, that is possible. However HRC claimed as Mitt did that she was part of the civil rights movement, when that is impossible if she was a "Goldwater girl". Just tell the truth. In regards to her thesis, if she has nothing to hide, why is she hiding everything?
To franklin/dallas & others:
Taken from Denzel Washingont as "Melvin Tolson" in the Great Debaters addressing Willie Lynch 1712 methods. "I am here to help you to find, take back and keep your righteous mind....
BECAUSE (B/C) OBVIOUSLY YOU (franklin/dallas & others) HAVE LOST IT"
Independence of thought means to let people disagree and RESPECT those that have differing opinions then yours. That is the essence of the Spoken Word! Peace!
Willie Lynch would be proud of you my friend. You are following directions like a good BOY. Have you ever heard someone QUESTION Bill Clinton, George Bush, or Ronald Reagan, whether they were white enough? NO! But you are calling OBAMA a so-called , bi-racial negro. That's what they see, and that's what he is. He is 100% BLACK if he only 5%. PERIOD!
And so what if he was Muslim for the first 26 years of his life. Are you prejudiced? Have you let Bush scare you to think they will attack us over here if we don't fight them over there? THINK......Would you sit back quietly if a country invaded the US, kill, rape, and torture your family members? Muslim or Christian, we are all God's children!
Wow,this article was excellent. You're out of your mind if you think that a black man standing up for his people is Willy Lynch. I guess your idea of being anti-Willie Lynch would be to support the white woman. How intelligent!
Apparenly you Blogged the wrong person! But, I agree with you.
I am not prejudice to Obama being muslim (0-26 years) and Christian (26+). I don't believe one religion is superior to another. What I do have a problem with is this secrecy from Obama to avoid it. Romney, who is Mormon, was asked about is religion and honestly discussed it. Obama is not, but alludes to its influence as one that can help him deal with other people in foreign affairs. Hmmm! Manchurian Candidate strikes again. I don't need to have people disguised as U.S. citizen do a 9/11 attack to question their background and capability to able to run this country that has existed since 1791.
Willie Lynch 1712 reference was in reference to Senator Biden's "clean" reference for Obama. The point of this was to say that in order to be accepted in white establishment (i.e. to be come President) you have to be part white. That is not fair or what any Black should want. No one is judging you on the content of your character, qualifications or actual accomplishments. But, they are characterizing you on YOUR SKIN TONE ONLY.
For example, why does Obama and the media want to distance themselves from Jackson, Sr. in the comparison of running for U.S. president? Do you think it is a coincidence that whites think Obama is "clean" or compatible to become president eventhough he only has 3 years of experience with the complex federal government? That is a problem because Jesse did reach out to many people in 1984 and 1988 but b/c he was not "clean" (part white) he could not have a legitimate shot to win even though he did 2nd place to Dukakis in 1988.
Makes you think of the house slave v. field slave all over again where the master still runs control over us. Obama can camaflouge from black or white in order to get his advances.
I don't like that one bit. So, excuse me for not falling to this prey like Toni Morrison is considering him "black" now. Black folks who are not "clean" (bi-racial) don't have a way to go in and out of society. We have to survive and thrive with what we have. We have to be QUALIFIED in a variety of areas not just be articulate and a great speaker/orator. That is my concern for him and this Obama campaign.
People are swept away by his speeches but are not asking him questions that you would ask Clinton or other candidates:
How would you implement your change?
When do you expect to execute your plans?
How do you plan to overcome the Congressional or S.Ct. opposition to your plans?
Also, they are not requesting Obama answer the 3 questions posed above during debates or round tables.
He talks in circles and then everyone is "inspired."
Give me a break! I don't need a Bush 2004 speech of "I am a uniter, not a divider" and then be the most divisive president in practice.
I like to see results and this Obama ARTICULATE THE RESULTS AND HOW HE PLANS TO ACHIEVE THEM IN THE DEBATES.
But, he probably can't do that with only 3 years of experience in a complex federal govt. So we have the "hope" and "yes we can" appeals.
Give me a break! I don't need Hope, I NEED HELP! and a President who can EXECUTE that help (not just talk about it).
Bill Clinton was attorney general from 1977-1979. He was governor from 1979 to 1981 and from 1983-1992. Is anyone claiming that Huckabee is inexperienced? Young? Yes. Inexperienced? No.
JFK was a US Rep for 6 years and a US Senator for 7 years. Inexperienced? No. Young? Yes.
Ronald Reagan was a governor for 8 years. Young? No. Inexperienced? No.
If you're going to make any argument, for or against something, make it based on fact.
Mitt Romney was governor for 4 years. That's 4 years of government experience though he was CEO of the 02 Winter Olympics. He founded his one of the biggest and most successful consulting firms in the U.S.
Hillary Clinton has been a US Senator for 7 years.
Barack Obama was a Rep to Illinois State Senate and he's been a US Senator for 3 years.
You can't compare gubernatorial and senate experience. Apples and oranges, but if you're going to make claims about someone's years of experience, that's very basic.
Gorgeous Black Women
The comparison is federal only between Clinton and Obama. The argument was the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (not state government) is a very complex system. In order to understand it, you have to have contact with many facets like lobbyist for different groups, the separate of powers between the 3 branches (executive, legislative and judicial)
Ability to multi-task as a commander in chief, chief executive officer, etc....
The point is it can't be about change. As JFK and Carter learned, youth or a limited mind can be a detriment.
Coalition building is the key to getting results, not just moving establishments (e.g. lobbyists) out of the way. The problem is not everyone is for lobbyists. The problem is Bush and the Do Nothing Congress did not balance the competiting interests like the Clintons had done from 1992 to 2000 to get things done like create federal surplus, world class FEMA, 22M job creation with health benefits, etc...
I am a CPA and had a discussion with a lawyer regarding the the IRS tax code is too complicated for people including her to understand. I told her if you remove one point, some of the benefits that lobbyists for respective groups passed in federal legislation would not be available. So, sometimes just trying to make things easy from a cursory view that Obama has does not necessarily equip proper solutions to do with the problem. That is the essence of Obama's inexperience. Instead of working with other coalitions, he states either you agree with my vision of change or we are going to replace you with a new generation.
In essence, it is not much different that Bush's message from 2000 to 2007.
This column was truly amazing. I am glad that someone is calling out Hillary Clinton for the kind of person she really is.
Before you type something, be sure you are not just spewing what you heard on the radio. Obama never spoke on Jena6??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xsW3s_l_yI. I should not have to research something for you that is readily available, unless you just want to continue to tell lies.
"Don't confuse me with the fact, my mind is already made up."
Who is the "decider" to say what experience qualifies you for the White House? Come On People!
And for everyone who says Obama speaks in circles, I would say he is sitting next to the best of the Circle Speakers. My honest question from above still has not been addressed by HilDog. Are you going to fine poor people making $6.00 an hour if they do not enroll in your health care program? You know this is not the only question she refuses to answer!
Check your facts, Dr. Watkins. It was Bill Clinton's campaign that requested that Hillary's thesis be locked away. It has since been reopened. Go read it yourself. It was an analysis of Saul Alinksy. Remember him? The radical leftist agitator? A decidedly un-racist chap.
Also, present the timeline in a manner that is more forthright. Hillary was a Republican activist, THEN heard King, THEN turned away from the Republican Party. Hillary was active in the Republican party when she was but a kid. She joined the party of her parents, like many of us do and then ultimately came to see a better way and embraced the cause.
Dr. Watkins, for shame for presenting untruths and making spurious implications. I sure hope you demand better of your students.
One of my main concerns is that during this democratic race, Sen Clinton hasn't pressed Sen Obama on his experience, projects, committee chairs, background as an activists against or for anything. He has none. This should not have been his time. Change involves more than standing on a podium and announcing it, change demands you know what changes have to be made, who can elicit it and how to approach it. I so hope that the "gloves" come off before this democratic run ends, because the fact is, Sen Obama cannot stand up against Sen McCain's military or political experience and we will have four more years of oppression, of watching our civil rights violated, and our grassroot concerns ignored.
Oh ye of little faith, skilled, licensed; seasoned; educated men built the Titanic, but a simple family man built the Ark.
Lest not forget the Pharisee named Gamaliel’s speech to the Sanhedrin, “…for if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But, if it is from GOD, you will not be able to stop them…” (ACTS 5:39)
Just as Moses, Noah, Medgar Evans and Martin Luther King were all just family men, so is Barack Obama, and if he serves the GOD I serve, then we can only gain from his victory.
It really hurts me to know that we expect others to do more for us as a people than we do for ourselves. We will not get out of that slave mentality that the slave master most show us more respect for us, and around us we see our own people doing more to destroy our people and we try to hide it under the covers and act like no one see what we are doing.
Up until this election the Clintons were OK with back people now they are KKK or Nazi's, lets ask ourselves do we ask others just how much do we give other races of what we ask others to give us. We must remember we cannot ask whites to love us more than they do themselves. What we as a people should be asking for is Freedom, Justice and Equality just like all others races are asking for.
Get up off of your knees and stop begging others to give us more than we give ourselves and NO the Clintons are not bigots right now he is in Africa doing more for black people than blacks over here are doing for our own African brothers and sisters.
Lot of hatred on this site. Just vote for who you want people. Obama is a great visionary. Clinton is an old school politician for real.
Barry Goldwater was a "known racist"?
From Wikipedia:
"Goldwater supported the Arizona NAACP and was involved in desegregating the Arizona National Guard. Nationally, he supported the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax. However, he opposed the much more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964[7]."
Barry opposed the CRA of 64 because it allowed Government to tell business owners how to run their businesses - right or wrong it violated his belief of government's role, race had NOTHING to do with it.
Learn history. It's better than lies.
Post a Comment