Boston Globe: Stinging Take-Down of "Hillary Clinton's Black Conversion"

[amborin]

Last edited Thu Feb 18, 2016, 01:28 AM - Edit history (2)

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/17/hillary-clinton-black-conversion/MGm28xS7rHMlX8VQ0admzJ/story.html


"Link: www.bostonglobe.com/…

Derrick Z. Jackson of The Boston Globe wrote a fiery column about Hillary and the black vote today.

On Hillary asking if breaking up big banks would end racism:

Never mind that Wall Street investors and bankers play a huge role in discriminatory redlining, predatory lending, and foreclosures. Clinton, who earned an estimated $1.8 million in big-bank speaking fees in 2013 and 2014, shamelessly counts on blacks for support while she is engaged with the system that holds back the aspirations of too many black people. She is hoping that no one remembers how husband Bill put the black poor before the criminal-justice firing squad and how she is in bed with the big banks that stole the American dream from black homeowners.

and:

According to the Justice Policy Institute, the Clinton administration oversaw the largest rise in inmates in American history. In 1995, aided by federal crime-bill funding, states spent more on prisons than on universities. By the end of the Clinton years, more people worked in the criminal justice system than in social services. According to the Sentencing Project, 13 percent of black men could not vote because of criminal records.

Yet when Clinton was at his most embarrassing hour, during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, his firewall was the Congressional Black Caucus and black churches. The Clintons’ popularity with the black elite translated into a massive advantage early in Hillary’s 2008 campaign. One CNN poll had Clinton ahead of Barack Obama among black women 68 percent to 25 percent.

The moment the race tightened, Clinton’s team racially choked. Her campaign publicly attacked Obama’s youthful cocaine use and his appeal to more conservative white voters. When her lead evaporated in South Carolina, Bill famously flipped the racial switch to whine that Hillary couldn’t win because she’s white. Little remembered is that she failed to win outright any age category of non-black women in South Carolina.

(from daily kos)

[JRLeft]

1. Yet, so many of us are jumping at chance to vote for the corporatist.

[Fawke Em]

2. I can't understand that.

There is so much evidence about where her loyalties lie and it's not with the average person.

How can DEMOCRATS be so blind to that?

Boggles my mind.

[JRLeft]

4. Name recognition and the blind love for Obama. I like the brotha,

but he was a Third Way democrat. He is to the left of Hillary though.

[uponit7771]

10. No he wasn't, Dyson did a story on this very dribble where Obama talked to West and at the end of th

... conversation ended up cussing West out of the same reason Sanders uses to Bash Obama; there was a gerrymandered GOP congress to deal with.

Both West, Sanders and you... leave out that little fact when describing Obama's decisions.

If Obama had the 80% dem FDR congress for 16 years like FDR do you REALLY think we'd have legislation that veered towards the center!?!?

Really?!

If so that begs how do people think congress works!!?!?!

[JRLeft]

13. Obama negotiated with Big Pharma and don't forget he was trying to push Simpson-Bowles.

That's not progressive, even he said this: "Obama says he'd be seen as moderate Republican in 1980s."

[uponit7771]

17. Great, if Obama had an 80% dem congress do you think he would've negotiated with anyone

...or just rammed every left issue through congress with the quickness?

This is somewhat of a trick question

[JRLeft]

18. He could have not pushed for republican policies but he did.

You have to wake up to reality he appointed Wall Street types all over his administration. He could selected progressives, but he didn't.

[uponit7771]

22. OK, so you think a gerrymandered congress where they changed the filibuster rules in practice had...

... NOTHING to do with Obamas agenda in the end?

thx in advance

[JRLeft]

26. Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Penny Pritzker, Arne Duncan,

Rahm Emmanuel? Arne Duncan is privatization of our public schools clown.

[uponit7771]

32. OK, lets skip the part were you didn't answer the question like many people who just bash

... Obama avoid answering and move to the people Obama associated with his agenda.

Do you honestly think 20 out of 2000 people make him rightward? Really?!

To directly answer your question I'm not expecting him to appoint 100% Warren level staff from Obama... that's not reasonable... I'm not expecting that out of Sanders either... that's not reasonable.

Like FDR Obama had some folks near his agenda I didn't agree with and that's going to be the same for Sanders

Those kind of points to attack Obamas overall accomplishments seem to be nicking picks overall seeing Obama has gotten ~80% of his left agenda done and passed through congress.

I think some people who don't agree with Obama's record don't mind letting perfect being the enemy of good or adequate

[JRLeft]

36. Here's the thing I think Obama did a great job, but he can be criticized when he is wrong

and Obama was and is still too pro Wall Street. He calls himself a new Democrat. New democrats are pro wall street.

By the way corporate democrats received the high level posts, so yeah.

[uponit7771]

38. OK, what would be "anti" Wall Street then? I worked with Wall Street, I'm looking at Sanders

... plan and don''t beleieve for a second he understands what happened in 08.

He thinks the "big banks" had a major role in what happened and his plan leaves out the investment houses which were the major players and the CONTINUALLY deregulated derivatives market that puts Europe and the US in danger... Sanders CFMA vote helped that.

I'd like to know what would make Obama more even handed or "anti" wall street...

tia

[JRLeft]

40. We're on course for another major economic collapse, he definitely understands the economic issues

that began in 2007. Deficit spending is what we need. You have to break up the too big to fail banks. Hillary doesn't want to because her funders do not.

[Carolina]

51. Hey my friend, JRL

I agree with you/your posts completely. Some will never acknowledge the truth and continue to be willfully blind.

They forget about Obama's history. His first political foray was to try to unseat Bobby Rush, a man who'd been in the trenches with SNCC and the Black Panthers, a man who represented his mostly black district well. Then, at the outset of Obama's 2008 campaign, veterans of the Civil Rights movement opposed him because he had not been in the fight and didn't' have the fight in him. They were right and we saw that as he caved to repukes, sometimes compromising before ever fighting.

Problem too is that he came to office with no coalition of his own. Who compromised his inner circle of trusted advisors/political friends? When he came to the WH, he selected all the Clinton retreads who were DLC/Third wayers. I knew that hope and change was a ruse when he selected that God awful Rahm as chief of staff. Then Geithner, Duncan, Clinton (throwing her a bone after her awful campaign) and Summers!

And he and the Party consider the ACA a signature achievement when it was crafted by the Heritage Foundation and is known as Romney care in MA. It was and is an insurance company bonanza. And insurance is NOT healthcare! It is in no way comparable to FDR's legacy of social security and LBJ's legacy of Medicare. It benefits the corporations, not the people. You either pay premiums, co-pays and deductibles that may not be in your budget or an IRS fine... that's really progressive

I could go on, but those with blinders on are becoming a lost cause. I'll work on my local brethren as the SC primary approaches

[JRLeft]

55. Too many apologists. He did a great job digging us put but he put a bandaid on the issue.

Wall Street is still a major problem. If one big bank fails it's likely to bring down the global economy.

[nyabingi]

52. A gerrymandered Congress had nothing to do with

the policies were choosing to push on his own. They weren't forcing him to appoint Wall Street insiders to important spots and neocons to his foreign policy team, nor were the Republicans forcing him to push for the TPP.

[uponit7771]

70. This is false on its face, I'll ask you the same thing... if Obama had an 80% dem congress like

... FDR had you think he would still made the same legislative decisions?

Yes, this is a trick question

[nyabingi]

74. He obviously would've gotten more

done - I don't think any president, at least in my lifetime, has faced a Congress that vowed to never work with the president and vowed to try and obstruct any and everything just because. However, I also don't think Obama was as much a progressive as he led people to believe in 2008.

When he distanced himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright (who was definitely speaking the truth), I began to question Obama's resolve to stand strong against the partisan attacks. He promised to be a uniter and made too much of an attempt (in my opinion) to work across the aisle with hateful, bitter Republicans who's only objective was to make sure the first Black president would be seen as a failure in history books.

I think it was his misguided and silly attempt to work across the aisle that compelled him to being people like Robert Gates, Chuck Hagel, Hillary Clinton, Victoria Nuland, and other neocons into his administration - you don't give your enemies a position as cook and not expect them to eventually slip a little poison in your meal.

In my opinion, Obama was always playing it too cautious legislatively. He dropped the public option from the ACA under pressure from the insurance industry, and his advocacy of the TPP can only be justified as paying back favors to corporate donors to the Democratic Party.

I would like to think Obama would have governed differently with an 80% Democratic Congress, but I'm not too sure I can say that.

[JRLeft]

90. Yes, because he said he was a new democrat, he called himself a centrist.

He's not a progressive, he stated that himself. It's clear you see him as something he's not.

[noiretextatique]

91. of course he would...he had a majority

when he was kissing up to the GOP. trying to morph him into a progressive is absurd.

[JRLeft]

93. Read this.

New Democrats, also called Centrist Democrats, Clinton Democrats, Moderate Democrats, or Neoliberal Democrats, is an ideologically centrist faction within theDemocratic Party that emerged after the victory of Republican George H. W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election. They are an economically neoliberal and "Third Way" faction which dominated the party for around 20 years starting in the late 1980s after the US populace turned much further to the political right. They are represented by organizations such as the New Democrat Network and theNew Democrat Coalition.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats

Obama: 'I am a New Democrat'

By CAROL E. LEE and JONATHAN MARTIN

 

03/10/09 07:04 PM EDT

 

Updated 03/11/09 09:55 AM EDT

President Barack Obama firmly resists ideological labels, but at the end of a private meeting with a group of moderate Democrats on Tuesday afternoon, he offered a statement of solidarity.

“I am a New Democrat,” he told the New Democrat Coalition, according to two sources at the White House session.

The group is comprised of centrist Democratic members of the House, who support free trade and a muscular foreign policy but are more moderate than the conservative Blue Dog Coalition.

Obama made his comment in discussing his budget priorities and broader goals, also calling himself a “pro-growth Democrat” during the course of conversation.

The self-descriptions are striking given Obama’s usual caution in being identified with any wing of his often-fractious party. He largely avoided the Democratic Leadership Council — the centrist group that Bill Clinton once led — and, with an eye on his national political standing, has always shied away from the liberal label, too.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2009/03/obama-i-am-a-new-democrat-019862

[zigby]

94. What precisely is false about that post?

He did in fact do all those things. And some good things. Mixed bag, let's be honest. We all knew the score when he stacked his Cabinet.

[noiretextatique]

89. forget about reality

this poster believes clinton has a lifetime "hood pass."

[JDPriestly]

54. And why doesn't he have an 80% Democratic Congress?

I like him very much, but I think he does not have the Congress he might like because he does not argue for the policies the people want.

He wants the TPP. Democrats and working people do not want the TPP.

Watch the movie, The Big Short, or better yet, read the book. Beyond Dodd-Frank, what has Obama done or proposed to make sure that the housing market doesn't turn into another bubble that leads to a melt-down?

What new laws has Obama proposed that would reduce our incarceration rates?

Why didn't he push harder for a public option when he was negotiating Obamacare?

Why weren't single payer proponents at the table when he was negotiating Obamacare?

In particular, why were the Wall Streeters allowed to take their bonuses after the bail-out?

And why hasn't Obama proposed legislation to better protect working people's pension funds and 401(K)s in times of economic difficulty?

And why don't Democrats back up Elizabeth Warren's proposal to have the post offices offer low-cost banking for small accounts for working people now that banks virtually charge small savers and working people just to keep their money for them?

There are so many things that Democrats could fight for that would earn the trusts and votes of Americans. And if we did that, we would return to the days when Democrats could rely on having a majority in Congress.

Why don't wealthy Democrats buy radio stations and put progressive talk radio on rather than spend the money on campaign donations to the likes of some of the conservative Democrats?

[uponit7771]

72. Cause he's evil and Hillary killed Abe Lincoln and whatever other hyperbolic crap bashers

... want to throw in the mix

[JDPriestly]

73. Sorry if the truth hurts.

Obama has not stood tall for Americans at a time when we have suffered from the irresponsible, fraudulent conduct on Wall Street.

He got the banks on their feet, but America's young people and families are still awash in debt they should never have had to take on in the first place.

Bernie has some ideas about how to deal with that.

Hillary doesn't.

Watch the movie, The Big Short.

[cui bono]

75. +1

[Andy823]

82. He didn't have it because

A lot of people wanted to "teach him a lesson" in 2010 so they sat on their ass and din't vote. Same thing in 2014. The old BS that "both parties are the same" so why vote, the BS people were saying that he was just like Nixon, and all the other bullshit that was being spread around, helped convince those who were gullible enough to believe crap, and they sat on their ass and now look what we got.

Republican don't buy that kind of bullshit and they turned out in larger numbers helping the GOP take over local, state, and national offices. When Democrats get out and vote, republicans lose, when Democrats buy into right wing propaganda, we lose. I just hope this year people are smarter than they were back in those elections.

[JDPriestly]

85. Until 1994, the Clinton administration, we had a Democratic

Congress nearly every election. There were a few exceptional elections, but since Clinton and 1992, we have had far fewer Democratic Congresses, far, far fewer.

The Democratic Party's shift to the right has caused a lot of voters to stay home in disgust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

The House was Republican only twice between 1931 and 1995.

The Senate was republican more often: 5 times between 1933 and 1995 including 3 times during the Reagan years.

Since Clinton and 1995, the Senate has been Democratic in only 4 two-year periods. The House has been Democratic during only two election cycles.

Clinton, it could be said, lost Congress. It's probably unfair to say that, but it certainly is a possibility.

Too much centrism gives people too little to vote for.

[noiretextatique]

56. The delusion of the folks is stunning.

Some even claim he is progressive, like Clinton.

[Kentonio]

15. Both houses were blue when he got into office.

They also certainly didn't have a single thing to do with his appointing an endless stream of Wall St figures to his administration.

Obama has described himself as an old school moderate Republican, so I don't know why you're trying to fight this corner.

[uponit7771]

19. Winger meme and you know it, GOP changed filibuster rules so there was only controlling vote

... for 59 days... after that the GOP filibustered EVERYTHING and stop all legislation.

Again, the effects of congress on Obama's agenda is something bashers like to leave out of the conversation

[Kentonio]

23. You seem to have conveniently ignored the more relevant part of my post

Which had absolutely nothing to do with the makeup of congress.

[uponit7771]

29. 1. Obama didn't describe himself as a republican and there's NOTHING along his record so far

... in actions that establish's that he's thought like a republican even if he EXPLICITLY said such (which he didn't cause you wont link NOR quote him)... I''m not a LIV, I know the interview you're talking about.

2. Sanders like FDR will appoint people associated with Wall Street to their admins.... there's no one in their right mind who believes that out of 3 - 4 million people who work for the US government in sundry capcities there's not going to be someone associated with Wall Street in Sanders cabinet or near his agenda.... that's foolish on its face.

3. well... already gave 3... there was only control for 59 days

[Kentonio]

34. Hmm..

1) Except he did..

"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican"

2) There is a massive difference between someone with any vague association with Wall St, and the likes of Lawrence Summers, Michael Froman and the rest.

3) I actually have a lot of sympathy for the ridiculous and blatantly racist obstructionism that the President had to go through, and I'm certainly not on any mission to drag him down. He's a good man and he was in a terribly difficult situation. That doesn't however absolve him from blame over the issues where he could have done better and chose not to. He ran as far more progressive than he actually was when in office, and trying to stick all of that on the Republicans is not factually accurate.

[uponit7771]

37. "Would be considered" != I am... that's syntax... Lets look at his overall record and not just one

... interview worth of pretzel logic words and that meme falls flat on its face.

Obama is a progressive period, a case that makes the opposite point is just a bunch of wingerish like noise and sophistry... like trying to convince people Obama considers himself a republican.

2) I'm not talking about vague associations when it comes to FDR and other dem presidents either who've had people who've worked on Wall Street or for wall street assoicated with their agenda .. and I'm not just talking about cabinet positions. No one in their right mind is going to believe Sanders, a person who lobbies Walls Street for their money for his campaigns, is going to have NO ONE associated with his presidential agenda in tight or lose ways from Wall Street... that kind of litmus would be setting him up for failure

3) Of course he could have done better like every other high performing dem president, that goes without saying so I don't know why its being established here. In some cases Obama was even adequate and that's SELLING the TPP not just the legislation itself...

On your last sentence, do you think if Obama had a 80% dem congress in house and senate do you think his agenda would've been more leftward

This is somewhat of a trick question

[Kentonio]

39. Strange version of reality where someones own words can be written off as 'pretzel logic words'

I judge a person's progressiveness by how progressive their actual policy positions are. His just haven't been that progressive. Then again as you're a Third Way Democrat I fully understand how our opinions about what constitutes a progressive would be wildly different.

2) You don't get to hire former hedge fund managers to prominent positions on financial policy and then try and claim its unavoidable. It isn't. He chose to do it and he did it. Deal with it.

3) I don't understand what you're saying about TPP there. Do you think he did the right thing or the wrong thing by supporting it?

As for your 'trick' question, I think he would have moved forward a somewhat more socially progressive agenda (on some but not nearly all issues given his deep religious beliefs) but probably not a more economically progressive one. This cuts to the heart of the Third Way war being waged here though I think, for many of us on the left you're not a progressive if you're willing to abandon half of the battle.

[uponit7771]

69. Whats stranger is "I would be considere" by OTHERS (cause your quote leaves out this context) = I am

... again, I'm not a LIV

It was a trick question because the way our government works he wouldn't have had to move forward congress would've moved more without him like what happened with FDR.

It wasn't FDR proposing tons of leftward legislation, it was congress ... the 80% dem congress didn't just wait on FDR...

Obama couldn't just move a little leftward he would've moved as left as the congress would have pulled him like FDRs congress.

[Kentonio]

71. Why would you think that?

Many of the actual Democratic members of that congress weren't that far to the left. Without the pressure of a president who had just been elected on a platform of progressive issues, why would the congress push on it?

[uponit7771]

83. Cause after 80% House becomes strongest legislative body, that's why its a trick question

... the speaker could just propose their own legislation and veto proof it with votes.

[Kentonio]

96. True, although a veto proof house passing legislation against their own President would be bold

[uponit7771]

97. You don't get it, the president wouldn't have a choice!!! FDR had a congress to push him further

...left.

People bash Obama for not being as left as they want but leave out the right ward congress.

Yes, congress makes a difference no matter how much bashers like Sanders wants to minimize its effect of proposed legislation and on a presidents agenda for the sake of bashing!!!

The "revolution" on the left looks like more like a temper tantrum of the power structure on the left... not like something that's going to tangibly change the country on the level FDR did.

[Kentonio]

98. You're missing my point

People vote for congress as a more local vote. The presidency is usually how people express their desire for the direction of the country. If a president is elected on a particular platform and then his own party refused to support that platform, that would be problematic.

[uponit7771]

99. In the case of Obama the bashing is disingenuous when it comes to legislation because the narrative

... is he had all the power to do what he wanted he just went rightward because he could... that's center to Sanders critique on Obama.

Regardless of the reasons why people vote members into the house its effect on a presidential agenda is gating...

Leaving that out in the narrative of critique on Obama's proposals is disingenuous

Like screaming at the cabby for taking a right turn so they can go left on a southbound route...

[Kentonio]

100. No, the criticism of Obama isn't that he went right because the house forced him to.

It's that he also went right when he didn't have to.

[uponit7771]

102. K, thats position is not reality... that's not even close to a rational critique seeing how the US..

... government works even on a procedural bases.

Obama has to yield to congress not vice versa... not even close... the constitution has it so congress is the stronger legislative body and not the president.

QUESTION: So it DOES sound like you think that if Obama had an 80% dem congress like FDR Obama would fight the dem congress's leftward legislation.

Am I right on that?!

no trick question

[Kentonio]

103. It has nothing to do with Congress for goodness sake

Congress didn't force him to choose senior Wall St figures to lead financial policy in his administration. Congress didn't force him to support TPP, or launch countless drone strikes. These are his decisions, and his alone.

[uponit7771]

104. OK... I thought we were talking about legislation exclusively... right !?!??!

If not then I agree with you on that Obama ... like ALL THE OTHER GREAT PROGRESSIVE PRESIDENTS..... have done some very fucked up things.

I don't agree with around 8% of whatever actions he took...

That's still outstanding, People usually agree with 90% of the actions the people they sleep next to and that's max!!!!

I don't understand what the litmus is then, don't understand what you want or What Sanders wants ..... cause YOU.... Kentoni..... are NOT going to agree with 5-10% of the actions Sanders takes EITHER!!!

Some of the actions Sanders is going to take as president... LIKE ALL OTHER GREAT PROGRESSIVE PRESIDENTS... are going to be fucked up... totally against his brand and ideals on the face of it.


The idea that the baby has to be thrown out with the bath water when it comes to Obama still sounds basherish to me....


Come back

[Kentonio]

105. We never said anything about criticizing everything he did..

Or indeed that the things I mentioned invalidate the positives. He's been a good President, but it's seriously annoying when even inside our own party any mention of the bad stuff seems to have people leaping to the attack. He's a president, not the head of a religion, we're allowed to point out the negatives and if we don't then we can't complain when subsequent presidents do the same things.

Incidentally I'm sure there will be plenty of things during a Sanders presidency that annoy me too. Then again I'm a pragmatic progressive so I don't expect purity just like a wise president doesn't expect to not be criticized sometimes.

[uponit7771]

106. Neither did I, I'm talking about the 10% of his actions that you named in your reply...

... if you agree with 90% of what he has done and the other 10% you disagree with then that's outstanding.

We're not talking about other peoples reactions to Obama critique, which again... leaves out a lot of the influence of congress... we're talking about the claim that Obama didn't represent leftward positions OVERALL because he's done some really fucked up things.

I disagree with that notion "...His just haven't been that progressive..." because of 10% of his actions are fucked up?!

Those are your words...

That's what sounds like its throwing the baby out with bath water

[Kentonio]

109. Where did 90% come from?

The broader point is that the things he did by his own choice are the ones which reveal his own inclinations. A progressive woudn't have made the choices he made.

[uponit7771]

110. The same could be said about FDR no?

[noiretextatique]

92. that forum has taught you well eom

[uponit7771]

6. Cause "the person you've known for decades sucks, vote for me" isn't a good campaign slogan

[Bluenorthwest]

11. The phrase is: 'The person who opposed your equal rights for deaces sucks, vote for me because I

always supported your rights'.

I understand that you face the challenge of having to claim that the candidate who strongly opposed the civil rights of millions of Americans in detail for twenty years is really the 'civil rights champion' but still.

[uponit7771]

20. well, no one in their right minds believes that in the slightest and the Clintons haven't been

... perfect and sometimes not even good but they have a net positive record and that goes a long way

[libdem4life]

31. Another Big Fail. Net positive? Hardly. Now with three of them out there spewing garbage,

Clinton Fatigue will come sooner than later...even to the sheep who love to line up in a straight line and follow whichever one happens to be in front of them. It's a safe place.

[uponit7771]

35. Nah, fail = Clinton is Satan or anything close post... it's noise and sounds wingerish.

[MADem]

3. WHERE is your LINK????????????????? nt

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Took me ten seconds

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/17/hillary-clinton-black-conversion/MGm28xS7rHMlX8VQ0admzJ/story.ht

[MADem]

12. It is getting all too common that stuff is being posted w/o a link lately.

That never used to be the case here.

[Mother Of Four]

14. Thank you for that -

It's been driving me nuts but I didn't want to be rude.

[MADem]

30. You can do a copyright alert, but the admins will probably ignore that, too.

They don't seem terribly interested in this place anymore.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. I never ask, I go find it. Why? The lack of a link is either an oversight or an intentional move to

obscure facts, such as the OP yesterday claiming an LGBT lead for Hillary which the actual data says is a statistical heat with Bernie rising. No link on that one, just a pronouncement from straight folks. So I went to find the facts, knowing the link was absent for a reason......4.13% margin of error with a 7 point 'advantage' did not fit the narrative of 'she owns you people'.

[MADem]

28. An INTENTIONAL MOVE TO OBSCURE FACTS is WRONG. I don't care who does it.

Trying to toss a Hillary canard into the argument isn't working for me, see?

At DU, WE PROVIDE LINKS. At least, we always did.

And we should, as a group, insist upon it.

This is just one more thing that is making this place suck. The standards have gone to hell, it's newcomers who aren't respecting the TOS, and old timers--because the newcomers are saying shit they want to hear--are putting up with it.

[cui bono]

77. Link please?

.

[MADem]

78. Links....and cites!

Don't willfully and habitually infringe on others' copyrights.
To simplify compliance and enforcement of copyrights here on Democratic Underground, we ask that excerpts from other sources posted on Democratic Underground be limited to a maximum of four paragraphs, and we ask that the source of the content be clearly identified. Those who make a good-faith effort to respect the rights of copyright holders are unlikely to have any problems. But individuals who willfully and habitually infringe on others' copyrights risk being in violation of our Terms of Service.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

DMCA Copyright Policy
Do not copy-and-paste entire articles onto this discussion forum. When referencing copyrighted work, post a short excerpt with a link back to the original.

To simplify compliance and enforcement of copyrights here on Democratic Underground, we ask that excerpts from other sources posted on Democratic Underground be limited to a maximum of four paragraphs, and we ask that the source of the content be clearly identified. Those who make a good-faith effort to respect the rights of copyright holders are unlikely to have any problems. But individuals who willfully and habitually infringe on others' copyrights risk being in violation of our Terms of Service.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=copyright


There is no ambiguity, and it's not optional!

[one_voice]

66. did the link work for you? it didn't for me

edited: I got it.

[ellennelle]

44. ah; got it

thx

[Katashi_itto]

5. K&R

[Nedsdag]

7. BOO-YAH!!!!!!!!!!

[UnBlinkingEye]

9. Prisons for profit

My understanding is that Hillary has investments in them. Does anyone know if that is true?

[SheenaR]

16. It's fine

She didn't say street corners so the "others" won't care about this.

She is a fraud. Every day she gives me more of a reason to dislike her.

[EndElectoral]

21. K&R

[WillyT]

24. K & R !!!

[Nanjeanne]

27. And Bernie is too much of a gentleman

To point it out. He doesn't do ads about it. He speaks about who he is and what he wants for our future.

Hillary smears him, misinforms about him and then claims sexist attacks if he defends himself

I wish he were more pointed in his rhetoric but if he was the media would all claim Sanders gone negative. It's a tough place for him.

Even this morning on MSNBC the "reporter" following Clinton told the lie about what Mike said. The "reporter" following Bernie repeated it.

[senz]

61. This is why Bernie calls for AN END TO INSTITUTIONAL RACISM at every rally.

I know the media is biased against Bernie, but he addresses this issue in all his rallies now; people hear it or see it on the internet, and they know. Word gets out.

The tide is changing!

[bigtree]

33. more conflating Pres. Clinton's term with Hillary

...this is a dishonest article which ignores the fact that Pres. Obama has all but endorsed Hillary.

That has to 'bern.

[magical thyme]

49. Hillary vociferously supported Bill's 3-strikes and welfare reform.

Furthermore, she's trying to take some credit for his booming economy. Can't have it both ways; if she's going to claim credit, then she has to take the blame. Certainly for policies she supported.

"It must not be forgotten that amid the relative prosperity of the 1990s, which did benefit more well-off African-Americans, Bill Clinton sacrificed the poor to conservative welfare policies and the black poor to racist crime laws that Hillary now condemns."

[Carolina]

65. Exactly

She can't cherry pick the record. Remember it was a 2 for 1 administration and she claims credit for her decades of experience

[jalan48]

41. Yikes! What a phony.

[Betty Karlson]

42. K&R&Bookmarked.

[ellennelle]

43. thx for this

but is there some reason you could not actually embed the link directly?

that would be even more awesome than the heads up!

thx!!

[Octafish]

45. What a coincidence.

It's like tipping: To Insure Prompt Service.

[magical thyme]

46. here's a link to the Boston Globe article

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/17/hillary-clinton-black-conversion/MGm28xS7rHMlX8VQ0admzJ/story.html

[thereismore]

48. She is smug by default but especially there.

[thereismore]

47. Kickety kick.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

50. Maybe they should go visit another black church between their $2,700 a plate fundraiser dinners.

[TIME TO PANIC]

53. If Hillary is nominated, it will be because of name recognition and msm propaganda.

[MisterP]

58. people only vote for Clinton because they haven't heard of Sanders

(or, a self-defeating ancillary, don't think he could win the primary)

on edit: WHOAH I just opened today's national polls

[TIME TO PANIC]

59. Exactly. n/t

[MisterP]

60. fans: "it's a 7-point blowout! we'll win Vermont for sure!"

[Horus T Light]

57. what's your source

A paper in Boston is commenting on the black community. That's right folks Hillary and only Hillary is responsible for systemic racism in the financial industry.

[senz]

62. Boston Globe: major U.S. newspaper.

No one ever ever said "Hillary and only Hillary" is responsible for racism. Let's not be silly.

[MADem]

67. It's a "good" major US newspaper when it says things some people like.

It's a BAD backwater rag when it says things like this:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2016/01/24/new-hampshire-should-hillary-clinton/4wMHbvMFAB5onZZnBC5FqL/story.html


LOL, and all.....

[senz]

68. Respectable major news outlets run a variety of opinion pieces.

It's their duty to the public to allow contrasting points of view. But you knew that, didn't you, MADem? Surely you did. (Hmm, as I recall, you're probably well aware of the Boston Globe's standing.)

[MADem]

79. Mmmmm hmmmmmm....

I'll remember you said that.

[senz]

80. Please do.

Are you aware that there are more important things in this world than the petty infighting at DU?

[MADem]

81. Are you? You're the one who keeps beating the horse, here.

Here's a nice link for you to read:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/10/politics/jay-carney-president-obama-supports-hillary-clinton/

[senz]

84. I'm not beating any horse here or elsewhere.

As for your link, two things: 1) I don't think Obama particularly likes Hillary, nor do I think he's impressed with her competence. 2) More importantly, it doesn't particularly matter who Obama supports in this race.

What matters is the candidates' integrity and competence, what they stand for, and what they plan to do as president.

Why do you insist on seeing the campaign as "who likes who" rather than who wants to do what?

[MADem]

86. Ha ha ha!

So now Jay's the big LIAR, eh?



You might want to read that link I gave you a little more carefully. If you look real hard you just might find some of that "who wants to do what" you're fretting about.

Obama has a legacy, and he knows who will preserve and enhance it, and who won't.

And if you don't like that, you take that up with HIM.

[senz]

87. lol, you're funny, MADem.

I really don't want to like you, but I always do, at least to some extent. You'd probably be fun to have a glass and a good laugh with.

But once again, we must set about the task of making you more logical. First of all, when person X disagrees with what person Y says, that doesn't mean person X considers person Y "a liar." I don't consider Jay a liar; I just think he's wrong. That's all.

Obama said something the other day that convinced me he sees the issues in much the same way Bernie does. When I get something else out of the way, I might speak of it here on DU.

That said, I shall repeat myself in informing you that I don't think Obama's opinion on the campaign is particularly relevant. Interesting, maybe, but not very important -- at least not to me. Which doesn't mean I don't like Obama, because I do.

Okay, now have a nice evening.

[MADem]

107. I think Jay knows Obama's mind. And I also think it wasn't an "accident" or a "slip of the tongue"

that he said what he said. I think it was crafted, carefully, and planned for.

POTUS knows how to say a thing without saying it after nearly eight years. And that's what he did.

[w4rma]

63. Nah. She's just another enabler. (nt)

[senz]

64. Please edit your OP to include the link. Here it is:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/17/hillary-clinton-black-conversion/MGm28xS7rHMlX8VQ0admzJ/story.html

It's a good OP, amborin, but need a reachable link.

Thank you for this report!

[amborin]

88. sorry, and thanks! done!

[ucrdem]

76. Boston Globe, that's the paper that hates on the Kennedıs, isn't it?

They'll be busy the next eight years.

[MADem]

108. No. It's the HERALD (which used to be the Herald -Traveler, years ago) that "hates on the Kennedys"

in Boston.

The Globe always ADORED the Kennedys, and treated them with kid gloves, even when some of them didn't really deserve the treatment, particularly the young kids when they'd tear up Hyannis or get into devastating car wrecks.

[Live and Learn]

95. Imprisoning the voters you claim to count on, not too smart. nt

[Faux pas]

101. K N R