I read with keen interest the article posted here recently that discussed the "battle" between African American celebrities over Democratic presidential candidates. It seemed to pit Oprah and her support of Barack Obama versus Magic Johnson, Quincy Jones, Bob Johnson, and Berry Gordy and their backing of Hillary Clinton. Of course everyone has the right to support whomever they want based upon whatever criteria that moves them, but this black celebrity support of Senator Clinton seems a bit odd to me. In this singular moment of political and racial history for our people, why would prominent African Americans come out against one of their own who has a legitimate chance at the highest political office in the land? Why would Magic & Co. feel the apparent overwhelming need to diss Barack before all of America; to essentially undercut his support from his own core base of people? What's moving them to do this?

This support of Hillary brings into question whether blood really is thicker than water. Does it mean nothing to them that Barack is (like them) a black man who, whether they intend to or not, they leave hanging in a major, public, way? Are they thinking at all about the fact that if Barack wins, they will be on the absolute wrong side of history on this?

I wonder what the actual - real - rationale is behind their support. What has Hillary Clinton done to earn these celebrities' (or, frankly, any other African Americans') support? What legislation has she passed that has had a material impact on black people? Why, exactly, is she the best candidate for the nomination? How is Hillary Clinton better for African America than anyone else - but particularly Barack Obama? Is she better on civil rights? Is she better on economics? Is she better on the criminal justice system? Is she better on the Iraq War? What???


As I've written before, for many African Americans, it seems that this is largely about 'love for Bill'. But do we really vote for Hillary because of her matrimonial connection to Bill??? Beyond that, really, what has Bill Clinton done for African America? Seriously, what? He hung Lani Guinier out to dry. He presided over the institution of NAFTA which was responsible for millions of American jobs being outsourced overseas. He gutted AFDC. Despite his charm, he was horrible on civil rights. So, because Bill Clinton expressed a (politically self-serving) "comfort" with black people African America is supposed to ignore the record and fall all over themselves to elect his wife? I don't get it. Let's remember that Toni Morrison called Bill the "first black president" during the height of the Lewinsky controversy. So . . . his fallibility and shortcomings around marital fidelity are the characteristics that gain him honorary blackness? I don't think so.

The symbolism behind this support just bothers the heck out of me. Here, this group of prominent African American celebrities, Magic & Co., assert that a white woman is a better choice for African America than a black man. How, exactly, does that work? Now I don't believe that any black candidate is better than any white candidate. For example, I supported the Democrat, Ben Cardin, in the Maryland Senate race against Michael Steele. I believed Steele - despite his blackness - to be just wrong on most of the issues. But, unlike Steele, Barack is not a Negro-con. Far from it. He graduated at the top of Harvard Law School and rejected salary offers of hundreds of thousands of dollars at the most prestigious firms in the country to organize black folks in the hood of Chicago and to practice civil rights law. He had the choice to be in a corner office in a plush high rise somewhere and instead chose to help black folks vote. What comparable expression of commitment to black people has Hillary demonstrated? Ever?

And to be clear, this isn't just a black - white thing for me either. I would have much greater respect for Magic & Co. if they had come out for Denis Kucinich - because of what he stands for. One could fairly reasonably argue that Kucinich is actually better than Barack on the issues. But for them to endorse Hillary just smacks of something rather putrid and dishonorable in my opinion. We know that she bought some state reps in South Carolina. Should we think that that was somehow an isolated tactic from her campaign as it relates to securing black support? I actually applaud the Clintons for really going after our vote. It just disappoints me that folks like Magic & Co. fell for it and in so doing - lost the chance to do, what I believe is, the right thing in leveraging their presence in our community for our community. In contrast, Oprah's support leaves me pleasantly surprised. Here is someone who makes her living daily in the homes of white America, and has perhaps even more to lose than any of the others, yet she is not afraid to publicly support Obama! She deserves our praise and support for that!

At the end of the day, Magic & Co. disappoint me - although I can't say that they entirely surprise me. If you cut away all the warm and fuzzies, they all have made their money, essentially, pimping themselves and their culture to white America while reinforcing stereotypes of black athletic and musical prowess. Magic has leveraged his big smile and is now the face behind building Starbucks shops and movie theaters in the hood. Great! Just what we need to further sedate ourselves from our reality. We know Bob Johnson's record of peddling filth into our community to enrich white folks (BET's junk bond investors) before literally selling out to Viacom. I guess their support of Hillary could be seen as par for the course for them in their roles as 'front men' in America! It's really too bad.


Hopefully, thoughtful African Americans will see through it all and seize this rare opportunity. We can argue whether America is ready for a black president. We can even argue whether politics is the most effective avenue for our uplift. But, at the end of the day, a black man is running for president and we all have an opportunity to be a part of that - if only with our one vote. For me - I want to be behind that effort!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MBM,

In this singular moment of political and racial history for our people, why would prominent African Americans come out against one of their own who has a legitimate chance at the highest political office in the land? Why would Magic & Co. feel the apparent overwhelming need to diss Barack before all of America; to essentially undercut his support from his own core base of people? What's moving them to do this?---MBM

There is also a strange point of view 'going around' which says Oprah should not suport Senator Obama because her endorsement is TOO powerful, and therefore UNFAIR!!

I get the feeling that the support of these celebrities will be defended with an argument that such support is the result of objective thinking...

which has led them to conclude that supporting Senator Obama can be only because he is 'black'.

Pragmatism at its worst.

Maybe there is some promise of reward they simply cannot resist.

PEACE

Jim Chester

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:
I read with keen interest the article posted here recently that discussed the "battle" between African American celebrities over Democratic presidential candidates. It seemed to pit Oprah and her support of Barack Obama versus Magic Johnson, Quincy Jones, Bob Johnson, and Berry Gordy and their backing of Hillary Clinton. Of course everyone has the right to support whomever they want based upon whatever criteria that moves them, but this black celebrity support of Senator Clinton seems a bit odd to me. In this singular moment of political and racial history for our people, why would prominent African Americans come out against one of their own who has a legitimate chance at the highest political office in the land? Why would Magic & Co. feel the apparent overwhelming need to diss Barack before all of America; to essentially undercut his support from his own core base of people? What's moving them to do this?

This support of Hillary brings into question whether blood really is thicker than water. Does it mean nothing to them that Barack is (like them) a black man who, whether they intend to or not, they leave hanging in a major, public, way? Are they thinking at all about the fact that if Barack wins, they will be on the absolute wrong side of history on this? Or are they really even considering such (perhaps to them) lofty ideals?

I wonder what the actual rationale is behind their support. To be clear, what has Hillary Clinton done to earn these celebrities' - or, frankly, any other African Americans' support? What legislation has she passed that has any material impact on black people at all? Why is she the best candidate for the nomination? How is Hillary Clinton better for African America than anyone else - but particularly Barack Obama? Is she better on civil rights? Is she better on economics? Is she better on the criminal justice system? Is she better on the Iraq War? What???

As I've written before, for many African Americans, it seems that this is largely about 'love for Bill'. But do we really vote for Hillary because of her matrimonial connection to Bill??? Beyond that, really, what has Bill Clinton done for African America? Seriously, what? He left Lani Guinier hanging. He presided over the institution of NAFTA which was responsible for millions of American jobs being outsourced overseas. He gutted AFDC. Despite his charm, he was horrible on civil rights. So, because Bill Clinton expressed a (politically self-serving) "comfort" with black people African America is supposed to ignore the record and fall all over themselves to elect his wife? I don't get it. Let's remember that Toni Morrison called Bill the "first black president" during the height of the Lewinsky controversy. So . . . his fallibility and shortcomings around marital fidelity are the characteristics that gain him honorary blackness? I don't think so.

The symbolism behind this support just bothers the heck out of me. Here, this group of prominent African American celebrities, Magic & Co., assert that a white woman is a better choice for African America than a black man. How, exactly, does that work? Now I don't believe that any black candidate is better than any white candidate. For example, I supported the Democrat, Ben Cardin, in the Maryland Senate race against Michael Steele. I believed Steele - despite his blackness - to be just wrong on most of the issues. But, unlike Steele, Barack is not a Negro-con. Far from it. He graduated at the top of Harvard Law School and rejected salary offers of hundreds of thousands of dollars at the most prestigious firms in the country to organize black folks in the hood of Chicago and to practice civil rights law. He had the choice to be in a corner office in a plush high rise somewhere and instead chose to help black folks vote. What comparable expression of commitment to black people has Hillary demonstrated? Ever?

And to be clear, this isn't just a black - white thing for me either. I would have much greater respect for Magic & Co. if they had come out for Denis Kucinich - because of what he stands for. One could fairly reasonably argue that Kucinich is actually better than Barack on the issues. But for them to endorse Hillary just smacks of something rather putrid and dishonorable in my opinion. We know that she bought some state reps in South Carolina. Should we think that that was somehow an isolated tactic from her campaign as it relates to securing black support? I actually applaud the Clintons for really going after our vote. It just disappoints me that folks like Magic & Co. fell for it and in so doing - lost the chance to do, what I believe is, the right thing in leveraging their presence in our community for their community. In contrast, Oprah's support leaves me pleasantly surprised. Here is someone who makes her living daily in the homes of white America, and has perhaps even more to lose than any of the others, yet she is not afraid to publicly support Obama! She deserves our praise and support for that!

At the end of the day, Magic & Co. disappoint me - although they do not entirely surprise me. They all have made their money, essentially, pimping themselves and black culture to white America. Magic is now the face behind creating Starbucks shops and movie theaters in the hood. Great! Just what we need to further sedate ourselves from our reality. We know Bob Johnson's record of peddling filth into our community to enrich white folks (BET's junk bond investors) before literally selling out to Viacom. I guess their support of Hillary is just par for the course for them in their roles as 'front men' in society! It's really too bad.


Hopefully, thoughtful African Americans will see through it all and seize this rare opportunity. We can argue whether America is ready for a black president. We can even argue whether politics is the most effective avenue for our uplift. But, at the end of the day, a black man is running for president and we all have an opportunity to be a part of that - if only with our one vote. For me - I want to be behind that effort!

Oh my... I agree with you MBM....

Well, I guess that answers that!

I also agree with you, MBM. One can ask; what has the Clintons done for us lately? What really (all) did he do for us specfically when he was in office?

i.e. why didn't he fix this for us-es while in office?

(since he LOVES us so much?)

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6975244



Does her marriage to Bill automatically translate to votes for her?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mirahjay,

nam myoho renge kyo

quote:

Originally posted by mirahjay:
I also agree with you, MBM. One can ask; what has the Clintons done for us lately? What really (all) did he do for us specfically when he was in office?


Does her marriage to Bill automatically translate to votes for her?

I don't believe that her marriage to bill automatically translates into votes for her. Of course, for varying reasons, he is charming and popular, but Hillary represented something in her own right for millions of women. She represented a different kind of first lady, one who was educated, a lawyer, a mother, and opinionated.

in the 90's she represented, in her own right, a babyboomer woman who had it all, which is what their first generation feminist mothers raised them to do, and longed to to themselves.

Because of this and some other things, Hillary is a polarizing figure. She is both loved and hated. I am not a hillary supporter and will not vote for her, but we ought not keep perpetuating the sexist myth that she was nothing before him, and represents nothing now without the charming adulterer.


On a side note, isn't it weird how these "prominent african americans" coming out to publicly support hillary are BLACK MEN, yet black women are basically being called traitors to the black man? EVEN OPRAH and ALICE WALKER came out in public support for OBAMA.....


Black Feminist Writer Alice Walker Endorses Barack Obama

quote:

I don't believe that her marriage to bill automatically translates into votes for her. Of course, for varying reasons, he is charming and popular, but Hillary represented something in her own right for millions of women. She represented a different kind of first lady, one who was educated, a lawyer, a mother, and opinionated.

I didn't even know people like Hillary up until now. I always pictured her as someone snickered at when she came around or a side joke (that I just didn't get).

quote:

Originally posted by negrospiritual:

I don't believe that her marriage to bill automatically translates into votes for her.

Respectfully, it already has. Moving to New York for the first time, does anyone think she would have had any shot at all of being elected to the senate without having been First Lady? That's not a slight on her skills and abilities, just an honest assessment of what being Mrs. Clinton did for her.

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:

quote:

Originally posted by negrospiritual:

I don't believe that her marriage to bill automatically translates into votes for her.

Respectfully, it already has. Moving to New York for the first time, does anyone think she would have had any shot at all of being elected to the senate without having been First Lady? That's not a slight on her skills and abilities, just an honest assessment of what being Mrs. Clinton did for her.

Hillary Clinton could very well have been a 2 term senator from any other state had she not married the charming adulterer. Also, due to widespread anger over Monica Lewingsky, Bill was not particularly popular at the time she was first elected, allowing George bush to be installed in the presidency due to Al Gores close association with Clinton + gore's own stiff persona. This was about the time Bill clinton was being referred to as "slick willie" and "wag the dog". Is it necessary to go there?


Bill Clinton's Declining Popularity in 2001


More importantly, What's up with all the prominent black men publically endorsing Hillary?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: negrospiritual,

When we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard or welcomed. But when we are silent, we are still afraid. So it is better to speak

Audre Lord

quote:

Originally posted by negrospiritual:

Hillary Clinton could very well have been a 2 term senator from any other state had she not married the charming adulterer.

Yes - but SHE chose to get married to Bill and live her life in his shadow the way she did. Again, I don't intend to malign her personal abilities, or her life decisions, but the fact is that she didn't choose to become politically active on her own until after Bill was heading into the sunset. The fact is that as an unknown person, however talented and accomplished, it is highly unlikely that she could have walked into a state she had never lived in and been elected to the senate.

quote:

More importantly, What's up with all the prominent black men publically endorsing Hillary?

I've written and posted the link to my commentary on that quite a bit. Read that if you'd like my thoughts. Beyond that, why does it seem that every question about Hillary is perceived as an attack on women broadly? Asking questions of candidates is what we're supposed to do as an electorate. Just because I - or any man - asks questions, or even rejects, the various arguments of the candidates (i.e. Hillary's 35 years of experience) doesn't mean that we are attacking women generally, it just means that we are, perhaps, rejecting a self-serving political message by this one woman. That's all.

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:
the fact is that she didn't choose to become politically active on her own until after Bill was heading into the sunset.

The above is a falsehood. The reality is that she had political leanings as a Barry Goldwater loving teen until she was taken to hear MLK by her minister. She got into Yale law school and advocated for the admittance of more blacks. She worked on the McGovern and Carter Campaigns and she worked in some capacity on the nixon impeachment proceedings. She did all this before marrying the charming adulterer. TV bios tht interview her classmates reveal that they always thought SHE would run for president. Bill Clinton's luck was in finding a mate as devoted to politics as he was. So while i can grant that she may not have been a new york senator, she most likely would have been an illinois or some other state senator.

quote:

Beyond that, why does it seem that every question about Hillary is perceived as an attack on women broadly?

because every doubt voiced about Barrack is interpreted as disloyalty to the black race...

quote:

Asking questions of candidates is what we're supposed to do as an electorate. Just because I - or any man - asks questions, or even rejects, the various arguments of the candidates (i.e. Hillary's 35 years of experience) doesn't mean that we are attacking women generally, it just means that we are, perhaps, rejecting a self-serving political message by this one woman. That's all.

we are right here Brotha MBM ------><---------. In fact I make nearly the identical point in the "Are sistas interested in Politics" thread in Sistas Spot: I'm glad we agree that asking questions about Barack and asking questions about Hillary are a normal part of the democratic process and no indicator of disloyalty to BLack Men or the BLack Race in general

"Esteemed Founder, it probably is pretty difficult for a male to see paternalism/sexism coming from a sympathetic male, but perhaps you haven't read ALL of Zakar's responses. All of Zakar's responses including this one indicate his self appointed role of telling the sistas how to be black. With the white people's ice comment, he is implying that black women are disloyal to the black race and actually prefer the interests of white people. I'm really surprised you didn't recognize the snarky paternalistic tone of "if it makes blacks women feel good to have a white woman in the white house" Where has anyone indicated that? What is it based on? Even in this particular thread BLACK women are discussing the pros and cons - which if i'm not mistaken, IS SUPPOSED TO BE A KEY ASPECT OF A DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL SYSTEM, NO? We can't even attempt to have one of the first discussions in sistaspot (thanks to sista Rowe) about our own political views, without being castigated as disloyal to the black man??? and to boot, trying to paint black women as integrationists and black men as nationalists? oh please! It's fine to be excited about and advocate for the first Brotha President and lay out reasons to vote for him. It's nothing more than blatant paternalism and misogyny to level charges of racial disloyalty against sistas and try to invalidate any other perspective they might have. Political passion for a particular candidate shouldn't blind one to the blatant paternalism present in most if not all of Zakar's posts...

Do you honestly think that Hillary has not benefited from her association with her husband? Are you really trying to infer that she would be where she is today if she had married John Doe?

Please don't try to change the direction of the discussion about Hillary at this late date. The question NEVER has been whether she has benefitted from association with her charismatic husband. That is not and has not ever been the angle of ANY discussion on this website. Don't change it now.

The discussion has always been centered on discounting whatever political experience she might actually have and invalidating her "qualifications" because she was viewed as "nothing more than a first lady" by MEN. On several topics MEN can be seen posting that she has NO political experience and that her experience as first lady is entirely meaningless, nevermind that the first ladies in some countries are often chosen to succeed their husbands. Would she be where she is today? Quite possibly given that she was inclined toward politics even as a teen when she was devoted to Barry Goldwater, until she was taken to hear Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr speak. She was already in an Ivy league law school when she met the infamous one, and she worked on George McGovern's, and Jimmy Carter's presidential campaigns as well as Nixon's impeachment hearings BEFORE being married to the infamous one. It's quite possible she would be a two term senator today WITHOUT having married the charming adulterer. Perhaps he would not be where he is, without her...

Again, I am no Hillary supporter, and I have laid out reasons why during several discussions over the past year, but the blatant sexism present in the compulsion to deny a woman's political validity to hold the office is disturbing...quite disturbing indeed"

This message has been edited. Last edited by: negrospiritual,

When we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard or welcomed. But when we are silent, we are still afraid. So it is better to speak

Audre Lord

quote:

Originally posted by negrospiritual:

The reality is that she had political leanings as a Barry Goldwater loving teen until she was taken to hear MLK by her minister.

Having an interest in politics and running for office are two completely separate things! Let me clarify: she did not run for office until after her husband's elected career was over and did so heavily leveraging her husband's name recognition and contacts. If you doubt this you have to look no further than the composition of her current presidential campaign staff - which is heavily populated by her husband's old cronies. That's not an attack. It just is.

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:

quote:

Originally posted by negrospiritual:

The reality is that she had political leanings as a Barry Goldwater loving teen until she was taken to hear MLK by her minister.

Having an interest in politics and running for office are two completely separate things!

My turn to clarify: "Political experience" and "running for office" are not synonymous and thus a person could have lots of political experience without having run for political office ie Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Donna Brazile, James Carville, James Baker, Ambassadors, political appointees, First ladies, etc...