2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote
Is this article about nuance? ("nuance" cites an earlier discussion)
"What have the Clintons done to earn such devotion? Did they take extreme political risks to defend the rights of African Americans? Did they courageously stand up to right-wing demagoguery about black communities? Did they help usher in a new era of hope and prosperity for neighborhoods devastated by deindustrialization, globalization, and the disappearance of work?
No. Quite the opposite."
..."Some might argue that it’s unfair to judge Hillary Clinton for the policies her husband championed years ago. But Hillary wasn’t picking out china while she was first lady. She bravely broke the mold and redefined that job in ways no woman ever had before. She not only campaigned for Bill; she also wielded power and significant influence once he was elected, lobbying for legislation and other measures. That record, and her statements from that era, should be scrutinized. In her support for the 1994 crime bill, for example, she used racially coded rhetoric to cast black children as animals. “They are not just gangs of kids anymore,” she said. “They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”
Both Clintons now express regret over the crime bill, and Hillary says she supports criminal-justice reforms to undo some of the damage that was done by her husband’s administration. But on the campaign trail, she continues to invoke the economy and country that Bill Clinton left behind as a legacy she would continue. So what exactly did the Clinton economy look like for black Americans? Taking a hard look at this recent past is about more than just a choice between two candidates. It’s about whether the Democratic Party can finally reckon with what its policies have done to African-American communities, and whether it can redeem itself and rightly earn the loyalty of black voters.
* * *
An oft-repeated myth about the Clinton administration is that although it was overly tough on crime back in the 1990s, at least its policies were good for the economy and for black unemployment rates. The truth is more troubling. As unemployment rates sank to historically low levels for white Americans in the 1990s, the jobless rate among black men in their 20s who didn’t have a college degree rose to its highest level ever. This increase in joblessness was propelled by the skyrocketing incarceration rate."
http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/
This is identical to Chicago. Despite the fact that Rahm notoriously neglects the southside while spending his time rubbing elbows with deep pocket businessmen and building up the northside around the clock, black leadership (the establishment) threw their support behind him and poor blacks overwhelmingly voted for him. The similarities go further. Just as the challenger, Sanders, is an unknown commodity, Rahm's opponent, relatively unknown Chuy Garcia was never introduced to the black community. Only 7 months after his re-election, those who overwhelmingly supported him in April have been calling for him to resign since November.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)Hillary Clinton & Marco Rubio Campaigns Both Benefited from Prison Lobby:
"Clinton's Ready for Hillary PAC received $133,246 from lobbying firms linked to GEO and CCA. Rubio's PACs and campaign have taken a total of $133,450 from private prison companies"...
Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton Accepted Almost the Same Amount of Prison Lobbyist Donations
02/09/2016 09:17 am ET | Updated 1 day ago
H. A. Goodman
Columnist published in The Cleveland Plain Dealer, The Baltimore Sun, The Hill, Salon, The Jerusalem Post www.hagoodman.com
ASSOCIATED PRESS
One little-known fact this year is that Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio have benefited from prison lobbyist money. In fact, they've taken almost the same amount of contributions from major prison lobbyists. Clinton's campaign has received $133,246 while Rubio's campaign accepted $133,450 from the prison lobby.
According to a Vice News piece titled How Private Prisons Are Profiting From Locking Up US Immigrants, Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio have taken virtually the same amount of donations from the two most influential prison lobbyists in the U.S.:
VICE reviewed federal campaign disclosures and found that lobbying firms linked to GEO and CCA have already contributed more than $288,300 to three of the leading candidates.
Clinton's Ready for Hillary PAC received $133,246 from lobbying firms linked to GEO and CCA. Rubio's PACs and campaign have taken a total of $133,450 from private prison companies or groups that lobby on their behalf. Bush's campaign and his Right to Rise Super PAC have received $21,700 from lobbying groups affiliated with GEO and CCA.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/marco-rubio-and-hillary-clinton-accepted_b_9191868.html
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...but it's for them to decide.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)She's the author of this excellent article.
There are lots of African Americans who use Twitter, and they are the people keeping this article trending. I'm thinking this may have a significant impact.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)as did most of the CBC.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Well done
