Call-in Number: (718) 508-9867
Join me for my "Late Night Black Political Slugfest.Call-in Number: (718) 508-9867
It's a late night black political slugfest for grown folks,
Bloggers and Internet political junkies.
Jay Carson, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said Thursday: “Congressman Lewis is a true American hero, and we have the utmost respect for him and understand the great pressure he faced. And Senator Clinton enjoys incredibly strong support from superdelegates around the country from all regions and races.”
AAPP: Hillary Interpretation - I don't need his endorsement anymore, it didn't work anyway. His constituents did not even listen to him or any of those folks at Congressional Black Caucus members.
AAPP: I wondered why John Lewis would go for Hillary Clinton. I also wondered why Maxine Waters would go for Hillary as well. So the chickens are coming home to roost. I salute John Lewis for following his constituents recent vote. It was also politically wise. No matter how great a politician, one may be, people never forget, when you stand against them. may that is why so many Congressional Black Caucus members need to be held accountable.
As an example as noted in the Washington Post Obama won Rep. Corrine Brown's northern Florida district by nearly 2 to 1, despite not campaigning for the state's primary because Democratic Party rules barred active participation in the unsanctioned contest. But Brown traveled to Wisconsin yesterday to campaign for Clinton, whom she endorsed in June.
"I have no stress whatsoever," Brown said. Other CBC colleagues, she said, "want to support the person because he's African American. But as Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Judge me by the content of my character, not the color of my skin.' " Brown said she is not concerned about the possibility that her constituents might seek to punish her for the decision. "People know I'm going to do what I think is right," she said.
AAPP: Maybe Corrine Brown needs to follow the footsteps of of Al Wynn. You see Al Wynn was not concerned about the possibility that his constituents might seek to punish him for his decision making either (although he supports Obama in this case).Obama needs to continue to rack up wins through March 4 contests in Ohio and Texas before a large number of black lawmakers who back Clinton will switch sides, Clyburn said. "After that, if current trends hold, then you'll see movement," he predicted.
AAPP: Yes and black folks need to start planning to run candidates against the old guard Congressional Black Caucus members who doubt the possibility that their constituents might seek to punish them for the decision made against the will of their constituents.
African-American Endorsement Tracker
H/T Source: Black Politics on The Web
Members of Congressional Black Caucus
Rep. Sanford Bishop (GA) - Sen. Barack Obama
Rep. Corrine Brown (FL) - Sen. Hillary Clinton
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (NC) - Sen. Barack Obama (switched from Edwards)
Rep. Donna Marie Christian-Christensen (US-VI) - Sen. Hillary Clinton
Rep. Yvette D. Clarke (NY) - Sen. Hillary Clinton
Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr. (MO) - Sen. Barack Obama
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (MO) - Sen. Hillary Clinton
Rep. Jim Clyburn (SC) - uncommitted
Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (MI) - Sen. Barack Obama
Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD) - Sen. Barack Obama
Rep. Artur Davis (AL) - Sen. Barack Obama
Rep. Danny K. Davis (IL) - Sen. Barack Obama
Rep. Keith Ellison (MN) - Sen. Barack Obama
Rep. Chaka Fattah (PA) - Sen. Barack Obama
Rep. Al Green (TX) - Sen. Barack Obama
Rep. Alcee Hastings (FL) - Sen. Hillary Clinton
Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL) - Sen. Barack Obama
Rep. William Jefferson (LA) - unknown
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX) - Sen. Barack Obama (switched from Edwards)
Rep. Hank Johnson (GA) - Sen. Barack Obama
Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH) - Sen. Hillary Clinton
Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (MI) - uncommitted
Rep. Barbara Lee (CA) - Sen. Barack Obama
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (TX) - Sen. Hillary Clinton
Rep. John Lewis (GA) - Sen. Hillary Clinton
Rep. Kendrick Meek (FL) - Sen. Hillary Clinton
Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (NY) - Sen. Hillary Clinton
Rep. Gwen Moore (WI) - Sen. Barack Obama
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton - Sen. Barack Obama
Rep. Donald Payne (NJ) - Sen. Hillary Clinton
Rep. Charles B. Rangel (NY) - Sen. Hillary Clinton
Rep. Laura Richardson (CA) - Sen. Hillary Clinton
Rep. Bobby Rush (IL) - Sen. Barack Obama
Rep. Bobby Scott (VA) - Sen. Barack Obama
Rep. David Scott (GA) - Sen. Barack Obama (switched from Clinton)
Rep. Bennie Thompson (MS) - Sen. Barack Obama
Rep. Edolphus Towns (NY) - Sen. Hillary Clinton
Rep. Maxine Waters (CA) - Sen. Hillary Clinton
Rep. Diane Watson (CA) - Sen. Hillary Clinton
Rep. Mel Watt (NC)- Sen. John Edwards
Rep. Albert Wynn (MD) - Sen. Barack Obama
Was their dynasty built on slavery?
The image most people have of slavery involves a cotton plantation with a big white house, a black village where 300 people live in cabins and a cruel overseer in the wings. This was not the model followed by the ancestors of President George W. Bush when, 175 years ago, they enslaved about 30 people on the shores of the upper Chesapeake.
It is an apt time to contemplate the link between slavery and the White House. This week President Bush is in the midst of a six-day trip to Africa, his second tour of the continent. He will visit several countries – including Benin, Ghana, and Liberia – from which the United States once drew slaves. That the trip falls on either side of President's Day, which honors statesmanship in the White House, makes the occasion all the more fitting. The moment is mature for the president to speak about slavery, especially given his personal connection to slavery's legacy.
A new book by Jacob Weisberg, The Bush Tragedy, mentions in passing that at one time some of the president's family owned slaves. Weisberg doesn't dwell on the links between the White House and the antebellum past except to say the Bush clan's story is a long-held "family secret." The Bush Tragedy, a revealing book about family dynamics in the Bush political dynasty, treats the slavery matter only briefly, focusing instead on the "spectacular, avoidable flame-out" of the receding administration. But the story that joins the 43rd president to predecessors who held title to dozens of people bears retelling in detail.
The skeletal facts surfaced in April 2007, when an amateur historian named Robert HughesIllinois Times, a small paper out of Springfield. Hughes found census records showing that during the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth centuries, in Cecil County, Maryland, five households of the Walker family, the president's ancestors via his father's mother, Dorothy Walker Bush, had been slaveholding farmers. The evidence is simple but persuasive: genealogies of the Bush family match up with census data that counted farmers who used enslaved workers. With this, the president joins perhaps fifteen million living white Americans who trace their roots to the long-gone master class. published his research in the
It's not as though the president is the only politician whose family owned slaves. Of the first eighteen presidents, from George Washington to Ulysses Grant, twelve owned people, eight of them while in office. At one time, Andrew Jackson was even a slave trader. Since Emancipation in 1865, a number of presidents have come from families that once contained slave masters. Even the current presidential hopefuls are likely to have slave owners among their ancestors. The descendants of slaveholders do not wear special tattoos or announce themselves in secret handshakes, but most know who they are. : http://www.theroot.com/id/44844
As noted by Associated Press, "In a fresh sign of trouble for Hillary Rodham Clinton, one of the former first lady's congressional black supporters intends to vote for Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention, and a second, more prominent lawmaker is openly discussing a possible switch.
Rep. David Scott's defection and Rep. John Lewis' remarks highlight one of the challenges confronting Clinton in a campaign that pits a black man against a woman for a nomination that historically has been the exclusive property of white men.
"You've got to represent the wishes of your constituency," Scott said in an interview Wednesday in the Capitol. "My proper position would be to vote the wishes of my constituents." The third-term lawmaker represents a district that gave more than 80 percent of its vote to Obama in the Feb. 5 Georgia primary.
Lewis, whose Atlanta-area district voted 3-to-1 for Obama, said he is not ready to abandon his backing for the former first lady. But several associates said the nationally known civil rights figure has become increasingly torn about his early endorsement of Clinton. They spoke on condition of anonymity, citing private conversations.
In an interview, Lewis likened Obama to Robert F. Kennedy in his ability to generate campaign excitement, and left open the possibility he might swing behind the Illinois senator. "It could (happen). There's no question about it. It could happen with a lot of people ... we can count and we see the clock," he said.
Clinton's recent string of eight primary and caucus defeats coincides with an evident shift in momentum in the contest for support from party officials who will attend the convention. The former first lady still holds a sizable lead among the roughly 800 so-called superdelegates, who are chosen outside the primary and caucus system.
But Christine Samuels, until this week a Clinton superdelegate from New Jersey, said during the day she is now supporting Obama.
Two other superdelegates, Sophie Masloff of Pennsylvania and Nancy Larson of Minnesota, are uncommitted, having dropped their earlier endorsements of Clinton.
On Wednesday, David Wilhelm, a longtime ally of the Clintons who had been neutral in the presidential race, endorsed Obama." More HERE
AAPP: What do you think. Should black superdelegates abandon Hillary if their districts supported Obama?
OK, this African American Political Pundit just applied for Credentials for the 2008 Democratic National Convention. I urge Afrospear members to apply if they are interested in cover this historic event. Click here for the DNCC Press Gallery application
Here is the email i received back:
Thank you for your interest in the 2008 Democratic National Convention.We have received your credential application to the DNCC Press Gallery.
Additional information will be requested during the early spring for security purposes. You also will be asked to submit samples of your publication.
The application process runs through April 15, 2008.
Formal notification will begin in the following months, informing each organization of its credential status.
Thank you again.
AAPP: Let's see if they let this old school brotha into the convention. The democrats says they want independents to cross over, lets see if it's for real.
Even The New Republic is seeing through this old school disgrace. But hold up they are not the only ones pointing out that old school civil rights hustler and Billary kiss-up, Julian Bond, is afraid that the Democratic voters of Florida and Michigan will be disenfranchised at the national convention.
As The New Republic points out, "well, of course, they have already been disenfranchised by the DNC when it punished the Democratic parties of the two states for violating its sacred calendar by scheduling their primaries earlier than writ allowed. Of course, what the the DNC did was very stupid. Imagine excluding the fourth largest state (Florida with 185 delegates) and a big industrial state with big minority and union representation (Michigan with 128) from the convention. But now that the primaries have been held with basically only Hillary running in them and winning the popular vote big-time the Clinton camp has demanded that the delegates be seated. This changing of the rules after the fact would be crazier than the rules themselves. It might turn out to be decisive for Hillary in the delegate count, pushing her over the top. Without competition in the primaries, mind you."
Jake Tapper ABC News' Senior National Correspondent noted, Clinton's side of the argument got a boost when NAACP chairman Julian Bond wrote to DNC chair Howard Dean to express "great concern at the prospect that million of voters in Michigan and Florida could ultimately have their votes completely discounted." Not seating the Michigan and Florida delegations would remind Americans of the "sordid history of racially discriminatory primaries," Bond said.
This morning, Rev. Al Sharpton sided with Obama, writing to Dean to express the opposite sentiment.
"I firmly believe that changing the rules now, and seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at this point would not only violate the Democratic party's rules of fairness, but also would be a grave injustice," Sharpton wrote. "Changing the rules in the middle of a presidential contest is patently unfair both to the candidates (including Senator Edwards) and to Democratic voters everywhere."
Sharpton said that Bond's argument of disenfranchisement "should have been made many months ago before the decision was made to strip these states of their delegates, and, once the decision was made, it should have been vigorously objected to and contested by those who felt it disenfranchised voters. To raise that claim now smacks of politics in its form most raw and undercuts the moral authority behind such an argument."
Watch Al Sharpton talk about this from MSNBC HERE.
Maybe the NAACP should get a new Chairman. Or just maybe hire a new CEO. Then again, maybe the NAACP should be more concerned about the spread of color arousal radio and television by Fox News Radio.
As Black Agenda Report notes, For the first time since the CBC Monitor began tracking the voting behavior of Black members of the U.S. House, no member scored higher than 80 percent. The “tripwire” bills showed great fissures in the Black Caucus on so-called Free Trade, willingness to cave to the Bush administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on funding the Iraq war, and on a bill that threatens a witch hunt in search of the sources of domestic “extremist belief systems” and violence-inciting “propaganda” on the Internet. Read More HERE
It's great to know that at least in my home state, Al Wynn - Congressional Black Caucus Member Has Been Held Accountable.
Has Obama doomed ‘black leaders’ sham?
By PAT MURPHY
Barack Obama may have thankfully brought something else decent to U.S. politics—a merciful end to self-styled "black leaders" who claim to speak for the nation's African Americans by promoting anti-white sentiments.
The most notorious of these, of course, are the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who haven't had a meaningful following for years and need to drum up controversy to lure TV cameras to hear what they have to say. The Don Imus flap brought Sharpton back from the dead.
Sharpton and Jackson are so yesteryear. When they invoke "African Americans" as their cause, they do as much to perpetuate racial divisions in the country as white rednecks throwing around the "N" word.
Along comes Barack Obama. Had he been of the Sharpton-Jackson school of politics, he would've expended virtually all his time and effort trying to capture the "black" vote and championing the needs of "black" Americans.
But Obama has proven with his gift of wisdom beyond his years that Americans are tired of black, white, Hispanic politics. They're hungry for leaders whose clear-eyed vision sees public service and the country's needs as without color or race or gender.
The Obama appeal proves him correct. He's been on a victory sweep in state caucuses and primaries by appealing to voters of all colors and gender, even those of Republican sentiments.
Naturally, Sharpton and Jackson dread going out of business, of being ignored by media, of no longer being identified as speaking for "black Americans," although there's no evidence black Americans as a group need or want Sharpton or Jackson to speak for them. More HERE
True, the job itself has no formal responsibilities beyond ensuring succession and acting as Senate president. (Vice President John Adams said the vice presidency is "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.") But Al Gore, Walter Mondale and Dick Cheney, as Coen notes in his book, redefined the office and elevated its stature.
Could that happen in a Clinton White House? Can a mule whistle?
Fear is, Billary would regard the vice president the same way that Harry Truman said history recognized that office: "about as useful as a cow's fifth teat."
So who would sign on, if asked?
To make up for derailing Obama, Billary would probably turn to a black centrist substitute such as Harold Ford, chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council and a former Tennessee congressman. He'd probably take it.
And if Obama's the nominee?
He's got some shoring up to do, especially in national security and foreign policy. Just as Lyndon Johnson's Southern strength and Washington savvy helped overcome some of John F. Kennedy's disadvantages, Obama would do well to select a running mate with a little seasoning -- and a little gray hair wouldn't hurt, either.
He's got a large and stellar field to draw from among senior senators, governors and House members. And unlike Clinton, Obama is free to select a vice president who can truly partner with the president on key issues without worrying about second-guessing from an omnipresent spouse who has been there, done that and thinks he knows it all." Read More HERE
Michael Tomasky noted in his recent article, Clinton-Obama dream ticket? Dream on, "Running mates are supposed to do three things. First, they are supposed to understand that the presidential nominee calls the shots. Their job is to travel the country for four or five months singing not their own praises but the nominee's. Can we really expect - and I say this in Clinton's defence - America's most admired woman (and she is that, in poll after poll) to play such a subordinate role? On areas of policy, will Clinton suddenly be able to adopt Obama's position - saying, for example, after denying it for more than a year, that the Iraq war was indeed a mistake?Second, running mates are supposed to bring some geographical advantage to the ticket. Kennedy chose Johnson, in spite of their mutual nuclear contempt, because LBJ would help nail down Texas and the south. I'm not sure Clinton brings Obama a single state he can't get without her.
Third, running mates ideally have strengths that make up for the candidate's weaknesses. George Bush was weak on global and military experience. Dick Cheney, a former defence secretary who had overseen a successful war, was a strong choice by Bush, whatever we may think of how that has turned out." More HERE
Michael Medved conservative writer with TownHall writes in his recent post Dem's "Dream Ticket" : Why It Won't Happen Watching the two of them together, isn’t it painfully obvious that she dislikes him?
Ironically, when Senator Clinton appears together with Senator McCain, there’s a sense of hearty geniality, fellowship even friendship. Her interaction with Obama, on the other hand, suggests tension, awkwardness, and mutual resentment. At the State of the Union Address, Senator Obama even made headlines when he and his new friend Senator Kennedy made no effort to greet Hillary even though she stood, in a attention-getting red dress, some three feet away from them.
On the most basic psychological level, Barack Obama echoes the deepest discomforts of Hillary Clinton’s hideously complex marriage.
For thirty-five years, she’s been constantly upstaged by a charismatic and attractive male whose oratorical and glad-handing gifts vastly exceed her own. She doesn’t want to spend the eight years of her potential presidency similarly upstaged by another guy, notably younger and thinner than she is, with an electrifying magnetism that easily equals her husband’s.
Moreover, she’d have no reason to trust him, or to rely on him, were he installed as her Vice President. Al Gore served as a faithful, slavishly loyal supporter to President Clinton because he owed his presence on the ticket entirely to Big Bill’s whim. Were Obama to serve with Hillary, he’d come to the position with his own, independent power base, and the knowledge that his strong campaign had forced her to accept him. No one could discount the possibility of a Vice President Obama challenging his boss on decisions of which he deeply disapproved. It’s entirely conceivable that after a single term together, he might even decide to challenge her for re-nomination.
Every Vice President (except, it seems, for Dick Cheney) emerges as a plausible heir apparent but in Obama’s case, his strong campaign would make him an absolutely sure bet as Hillary’s successor as leader of the Democrats. No President wants to look over her shoulder at a Veep with an independent base of support who’s just waiting for his chance to take over the party.
The long and bitter campaign against Obama, however, may require some special attention to the African-American voters who remain the most loyal component of the Democratic coalition. Even if Barack is excluded from the ticket, it’s hard to imagine a mass desertion of black voters to the GOP, but a lack of enthusiasm could lead to a disappointing urban turnout that would hurt all Democrats. If he continues to serve as Senator from Illinois (or, as rumored, runs at some point for governorship in his home state in order to gain executive experience) he’ll be able to provide an independent, compelling voice on the issues. He could support the president or oppose the president, without any expectation of loyal, dutiful, automatic agreement. If a Clinton presidency founders, he’d be perfectly positioned to offer a competing vision. If Hillary decides she needs a black running mate to make up for the wounded feelings of the campaign, there’s a better option for her than Obama himself. Aside from pie-in-the-sky talk of appealing to General Colin Powell to cross party lines to join a Clinton ticket (a nightmare for Republicans, obviously), there’s another selection that would also play in to a possible Southern strategy. Former Congressman Harold Ford Jr. now heads the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council), the same moderate, centrist group that Bill Clinton himself (and Joe Lieberman) once led. He’s an outspoken Christian who ran surprisingly well among white evangelicals in his close 2006 Senate race in Tennessee. He’s also even younger (he’ll be 38 in May) and better-looking than Obama, with the same sort of suave presentation and blue-chip academic credentials (University of Pennsylvania, and University of Michigan Law School). During his five-terms in the House of Representatives he compiled a conspicuously moderate record (supporting limitations on abortion, backing a stronger military and the war on terror) that could help Clinton run to the middle. Best of all, Congressman Ford would steal from Obama the distinction of the first African-American on a national ticket and, if Clinton wins election, he could run as her loyal successor and block Obama in 2016 (Ford would only be 46 –younger than Obama is now). But even if Senator Clinton ignored all these possibilities and considerations and decided to offer Senator Obama a place on the ticket, he’d find powerful reasons to turn her down. Why He’d Turn down the Vice Presidency Moreover, there’s always the possibility that a Clinton-Obama pairing loses in November – in which case his presence on the ticket would do him more damage than good. John Edwards’ campaign this year demonstrated the way that a failed race for the Vice Presidency gives little advantage in future campaigns. In short, a Vice Presidential nomination offers Obama no substantive benefits while depriving him of some of his independence and freedom of maneuver. He’d never again be able to run as plausibly as a candidate of “change” if he serves eight years as Hillary’s Veep. Inevitably, he would become a candidate associated with the infamous Clinton Machine, and tainted by all its corruptions and compromises. Obama knows history, and remembers the way that distinguished, powerful Senators of the past like Hubert Humphrey and Al Gore took the Vice Presidency and then found their own runs for the White House shadowed by the controversial legacies of their bosses (LBJ and Bill Clinton) And worst of all for Barack, the magical aura of this campaign, with huge crowds intoxicated at the very idea of a black president, couldn’t be recaptured if he’s already run in the number two position. If we’ve already elected (or even nominated) an African-America as Vice President, the idea of a future Presidential race wouldn’t be nearly as novel or thrilling. Why Not Obama-Clinton? With all the potent reasons for Hillary to disregard the idea of running with Barack, and the even more decisive reasons for him to turn her down even if she offered, some Democrats love to consider the upside-down arrangement: why not an Obama-Clinton ticket? If anything, this notion looks even less plausible. Those who know Hillary report that she thoroughly enjoys her well-established role in the U.S. Senate. If she lost to Obama in the Presidential race, she’d greatly prefer to return to Capitol Hill—where she could probably serve for the rest of her life and stands an excellent chance of succeeding Harry Reid as Majority Leader. As a prominent part of the previous Clinton administration, she witnessed first hand all the indignities and burdens thrust upon Vice President Al Gore—in fact, she administered some of them herself. Why would she want to open herself to the humiliation of waiting around in a powerless, second-string job in case some disaster befell a conspicuously young and vigorous president? Hillary would also find it difficult to use the Vice Presidency as a stepping stone to a future Presidential run. She’d be 68 at the end of a second Obama term, and the generational shift his nomination signaled would make it most unlikely that Dems turn backward to a Baby Boomer restoration with an aging Hillary. As for Obama, he wouldn’t need her and wouldn’t want her on his ticket. If he beats her in the fight for the nomination this year, he’d want to complete the Democratic disassociation from the nasty politics of the Clinton era. Barack’s insistence on “change” and a “fresh” approach signifies not only a departure from the age of Bush, but also closing the chapter on the age of Clintons. Hillary on the ticket inevitably brings Bill with her, as a third figure at the top of the party, and undermines the idea of a generational changing of the guard and the adoption of a new, more unifying tone. Finally, no President wants the malevolent combination of Bill and Hill scheming against him from a new vantage point in the Vice President’s residence at the Naval Observatory. If Obama feels that the bruises of the campaign require a female running mate he could find any number of preferable alternatives – particularly Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona. She has the executive experience that both Obama and Clinton lack, as a former US Attorney, state Attorney General, and Democratic governor in a Republican state who won re-election by a nearly two-to-one margin. She’s also won a reputation as moderately tough on illegal immigration, and might even help Obama compete with John McCain in his home state. Best of all, Napolitano (or other Democratic governors like Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, or Senators like Dianne Feinstein of California) come without the heavy baggage of the Clintons’ soap-opera marriage and reputation for political thuggery. Concerning the much-discussed “dream ticket,” most observers concede that neither Obama nor Clinton want it. When you combine their joint reluctance with the fact that neither candidate would truly need the other in order to run effectively against the Republicans, the likelihood of the uncomfortable alliance becomes very remote indeed. More HERE
Francis L. Holland, International Internet Social and Political Activist asks, Will Hillary and Obama Deliver this "Baby" or Kill it in the Delivery Room? He writes, "the most important question is not, "Will you support the ticket if you lose the nomination," but rather, "Will you join the ticket in order to win the presidency?" - - Francis L. Holland, February 11, 2008 know "abortion" is an ugly metaphor for what might be about to happen to the Democratic Party's hopes for taking the presidency, but I think "abortion" is also an apt metaphor. The party is "pregnant" with the possibility of electing its first Black AND its first woman to the White House. However, the midwives of this pregnancy are Hillary and Bill Clinton as well as Barack Obama. If they work together as a team, then the "baby" can be born health and can grow into a well functioning administration. AAPP: As I said, Everyone is talking about it. What do you think? Have you been talking about it?
However, if they fight over who will play what role in the delivery room, even to the extent of pulling the child limb from limb, then instead of having the "birth" in the convention delivery room (the birth of a new Democratic adiministration), we will have wanton political infanticide. The "baby" presidential election hopes will be torn limb from limb and all of its promise will be thrown into large green garbage bags.
This is not an argument against abortion. I believe there are some times good reasons for an abortion. But there is no good reason for the Clintons and Obama to abort the first Black/Female administration in America's history. There is no upside to the "abortion" that will occur if Clinton and Obama fight over this "baby" presidential election in the delivery room and tear it limb from limb before it takes its first breath. Read More HERE
Pr. George's attorney leads in early results against eight-term Representyative Wynn in Md.
WaPo reports U.S. Rep. Albert R. Wynn (D) conceded a short time ago after a stunning loss to Prince George's County lawyer Donna F. Edwards. Wynn, who had served in the 4th District for eight terms, had been targeted by an aggressive advertisement campaign, funded in part with hundreds of thousands of dollars from national labor groups and liberal organizations. The effort apparently convinced voters that Wynn had fallen out of step with his overwhelmingly Democratic district during his 15 years in Congress.
AAPP: Maybe its time for Afrospear members to target Congressional Black Caucus members who a just like Wynn and run against them. We need to hold Congressional Black Caucus members accountable who support Hillary Clinton after voters in their district overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama.
I just received an email from Democrats.com indicating that John Conyers is considering Cheney Impeachment Hearings. The email reads:
Congressman John Conyers
On Thursday, Chairman John Conyers' House Judiciary Committee held a hearing at which Attorney General Michael Mukasey said that he would not investigate torture or warrantless spying, he would not enforce contempt citations, and he would treat Justice Department opinions as providing immunity for crimes.
None of this was new, but perhaps it touched something in Conyers that had not been touched before. Following the hearing, he and two staffers met for over an hour with two members of Code Pink and discussed activism and impeachment, including Congressman Robert Wexler's proposal to begin impeachment hearings on Cheney.
Conyers expressed his concerns about what might happen following an impeachment, the danger of installing a Bush replacement or losing an election. But he said he's listening to several advocates for impeachment, including Liz Holtzman and David Swanson of Democrats.com. He hinted he could be swayed by a convincing argument, leaning out of his chair for dramatic effect.
AAPP: What the hell is wrong with Democrats.com? Don't they understand they will endanger losing the election to impeach Cheney? yes, I would love to impeach the bastard. But should that be our (America's) top priority now? So they want to rally the Republicans? The Democrats.com group seriously needs to get a grip. Democrats and democrats.com need to focus more on electing a new Democratic administration. These aggressive progressives, as they like to call themselves, need to triple their energy on the "inclusion" of blacks and other groups into their ranks. Rather than being an 'exclusive group' of white liberals. But that just might be too aggressive and progressive for Democrats.com
Hillary Clinton on Monday explained away Barack Obama's clean sweep of the weekend's caucuses and primaries as a product of a caucus system that favors "activists" and, in the case of the Louisiana primary, an energized African-American community.The DailyKos notes:
She told reporters who had gathered to watch her tour a General Motors plant here that "everybody knew, you all knew, what the likely outcome of these recent contests were."...
Noting that "my husband never did well in caucus states either," Clinton argued that caucuses are "primarily dominated by activists" and that "they don't represent the electorate, we know that."
One of the hilarious side-effects of every Obama victory is the spin from Clinton quarters and its surrogates and supporters explaining why said victories "don't matter".
Iowa didn't matter because it was a caucus state, and it's undemocratic. Same goes for every other caucus state including Maine. The only caucus state that mattered was Nevada.
Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Alaska, and Utah don't matter because they're small Red states that Democrats won't carry in November.
Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Louisiana don't matter because they have black people. Expect the same spin out of DC this Tuesday. Black people don't apparently count.
Washington and Minnesota don't matter because they have educated white people.
In any case, Washington, Nebraska, and Louisiana didn't matter on Saturday because everyone expected Obama to win them anyway.
Virginia and Maryland, assuming they're won by Obama, will be a combination of the "black people" and "educated people" rationalizations. Throw a little of "Obama was expected to win anyway", and you've got the trifecta.
Illinois doesn't matter because that's Obama's home state. Expect the same spin when Obama wins Hawaii by double-digit margins in two weeks.
Missouri doesn't matter because Clinton sent out a press release claiming she won it.
Colorado was a caucus state, so that leaves Delaware and Connecticut. Those are the only two states that apparently matter, giving Hillary Clinton a commanding 10-2 lead among states that matter.
One final line of attack used to minimize Obama's victories is the notion that "he can't win states without his base", his base of course being African Americans, white yuppies, and Red state Democrats. More HERE
According to Hillary Clinton’s version of history, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a dreamer, a talker (much as she labels Barack Obama), and the person really responsible for civil rights progress in the 1960s was President Lyndon Johnson, a doer (as she sees herself). This comment on history highlighted herself as the experienced candidate of accomplishment, and it may well have helped her to succeed in scoring an upset victory against Obama in the New Hampshire primary. Nevertheless, she fails U.S. History 101.
MLK was never a mere dreamer, never only a talker. He stood up for what is right, repeatedly putting his body on the line, going to jail again and again, constantly facing death threats. By such actions, King and a multiplicity of black leaders and movements at the grass-roots level mobilized black Americans as they had never previously been mobilized to collectively bring about change. King, above all, stirred African Americans’ emotions, raised their hopes, convinced them to believe in their abilities to alter history, and got them to come together to press for racial justice in a manner that could not be, and was not, denied.
Organizing mass demonstrations, encouraging an unprecedented burst of African American activism, and employing non-violent direct action tactics, King and those who struggled alongside him in 1963 in Birmingham and elsewhere provoked a national outcry that forced the Kennedy administration to propose a comprehensive civil rights bill. Intensifying the pressure on the Johnson administration to make the bill “must” legislation, King and his followers launched another protest campaign in St. Augustine in 1964. The strategy worked, and the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended legally sanctioned racial discrimination and segregation in most public accommodations and facilities, outlawed racial bias in federally funded programs practicing discrimination, banned discrimination by employers and unions, created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to enforce the ban on job discrimination, and granted the federal government new powers to fight school segregation.
It took a whole lot of ordinary black Americans, as well as King and Johnson, to achieve that legislation. The Civil Rights Act, King rightly said, “was first written in the streets.” It reflected the impact of a national conscience that had been educated and inspired by the civil rights movement and its leaders. That was similarly true of the equally historic Voting Rights Act of 1965. It was never a simple matter of talk or action, a dreamer versus a doer. No one should deny Lyndon Johnson’s skillful use of presidential, and personal, powers to break a southern filibuster in the Senate and to get the civil rights bills through Congress in a timely and unscathed manner. Nor should Americans forget what this young African American Baptist preacher did to inspire ordinary blacks to do the extraordinary, to struggle collectively for equality and first-class citizenship. Vitally worth remembering as well is all King did to attract the great middle body of white public opinion to make civil rights---in the words of the Republican leader of the Senate, Everett Dirksen, quoting Victor Hugo---“an idea whose time had come.”
Perhaps Hillary Clinton has got her history of the 1964 Civil Rights Act wrong because she had been so enthralled that year by Barry Goldwater. More HERE
The Washington Times reports, Mr. Obama, bolstered by polls showing him better positioned to beat Mr. McCain, said he can reach out to independents in a way Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton cannot. He also repeated that he believes the Republican attack machine would take aim at the Clintons, should she be the nominee. Mr. Clinton, who has a packed campaign schedule in rural parts of Virginia this weekend, said he had learned a lesson about how he should conduct himself in his efforts to support Mrs. Clinton.
"I think the mistake that I made is to think that I was a spouse, like any other spouse, who could defend his candidate," he said in an interview with NBC News at a campaign stop in Portland, Maine. "I think I can promote Hillary but not defend her, because I was president. I have to let her defend herself or have someone else defend her."
Voter exit polls showed Mr. Clinton's focus on Mr. Obama in campaign speeches hurt his wife's candidacy in South Carolina. For several weeks on the trail, the former president went after Mr. Obama's voting record on Iraq, and said the press has given his wife's opponent a pass, prompting top Democrats to warn him he could damage the party and another to say he needs to "chill.""All my life I have wanted to vote for a woman for president," Clinton told 800 parishioners at the Temple of Praise congregation in Washington. "All my life I have wanted to vote for an African-American for president. ... I wonder why God gave us this dilemma."
Clinton cited his wife's experience and policy initiatives in housing, education, heath care and voting rights for the District of Columbia and called Hillary Clinton "the best qualified person to be president I've had an opportunity to vote for."
At a later service at Greater Mt. Nebo AME Church in Bowie, Clinton asked several hundred parishioners to think and pray about their choice. More HERE
AAPP: How can Bill Clinton continue to appeal to black parishioners to pick a female candidate? Is this not showing how politically disconnected he and his advisors' are with the black voter. Does bill not get it. Has he not looked at the exiting polls, and the voting across America for Barack Obama? Black preachers, black elected officials and other clowns who are urging black folks to support Billary as the female candidate over Barack a black candidate is not only stupid politics, it's insulting politics. It's great that Obama has three advantages: Map, Money And Message.
Photo of Doris Lessing
Obama, who is vying to become the first black president in US history, "would certainly not last long, a black man in the position of president. They would murder him," Lessing, 88, told the Dagens Nyheter daily.
Lessing, who won the 2007 Nobel Literature Prize, said it might be better if Obama's Democratic rival Hillary Clinton were to succeed in her bid to become the first woman president of the United States.
"The best thing would be if they (Clinton and Obama) were to run together. Hillary is a very sharp lady. It might be calmer if she were to win, and not Obama," she said. More HERE
![[npr_newsnotes.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrutmUkZxwkFeBaRIQmhH5IjbSRus-kQEYwA_IbtQXARIcnJdZsw0tyuY63HLYZjQM-YtcE3niv6L_w73Bm9UQIrLrhurYZVxJP1HiHSpgUPM0xzBPZJIYjmSA06qU1uO9sjgFkTMkWjA/s1600/npr_newsnotes.jpg)
© Blogger templates Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
