Letters to the Editor
-
Clinton's results with African-Americans (and Hispanics)
I've seen, and heard, so much on the Clintons' great track record with African-Americans. I'm wondering what record is being cited?
The 1990s were tougher on African-Americans (in particular) than any decade since the Civil Rights Act was passed...worse even than the Reagan years. I find nothing substantial that was done by Clinton's administration to remedy the situation during the 90s.
Some context:
65% of metropolitan area African-Americans live in central cities. Central city poverty grew, during the Clinton years, to nearly double the suburban poverty rate (16.1% vs. 9.1% nationally). 75% of all new jobs created during the Clinton years were created in the suburbs. 65% of those jobs, including low-skilled jobs, are unreachable by any form of public transportation. Central city joblessness increased 15%, while suburban joblessness decreased .3%. African-American unemployment reached an historical peak at 41.6% in 2000, before Bush Jr. took office.
Hispanic support for the Clintons is equally confusing to me, since much of the above applies to them (as a group) as well (Hispanic unemployment also reached an historic peak at 32.8% in 2000).
The economic realignment of the 80s and 90s was especially harsh on African-Americans (and Hispanics to a lesser degree), and, again, I can't find any evidence of a Federal policy to counter the effects. ...it's not like they didn't know it was happening.
To be fair, all of this did start before Clinton came into office, but his administration doesn't seem to have helped any. Why would any African-American or Hispanic person think a Hillary administration would be any different? Barack was in Chicago at least trying to help before and during that period.
Hillary was talking about job retraining, etc. to counter effects of deindustrialization and off-shoring the other day. Where were those policies during the 90s? Why should anyone believe her now?
The rust belt was hit hard by economic realignment, and we have two Democratic candidates who seem to care. The trouble is that one has experience helping, and the other has a speech. Now, where have I heard that before?
-
What Would John Adams Do?
Survey the Gaza Strip (on the taxpayer's dime) for votes? Bowl for votes? Go on SNL for votes? Hunt in camo for votes? Wear a wire in the debate for votes? Get a $400 haircut for votes? Play the sax for votes? Scan prices for votes?
Into what has this great democracy devolved?
Wait. Don't answer that.
-
John Adams
...would have passed a sedition act, and locked up anyone who criticized him. ...I think.
-
Nobody believes NObama
What for? Friend of the working class. HAH. The only thing he's wanted to talk about is race and war: pandering to black bigots and to nutty anti-war protest types.
Any history of improving things for struggling workers? Certainly not in Chicago.
Go away Nobama. Nobody wants you except the nuts and the domestic terrorists who compose your support groups.
-
@KateTex
So, salon.com, where have YOU been on this one?
Salon, a former bastion of good investigative reporting has become the same sorry propoganda for the nut left as sites like Limbaugh and free republic are for the nut right.
Of course IMO they must have known what was going on. But it wasn't the red meat the nut left wanted. And as I see it Salon survives throwing red meat to the nuts (while advertising for the detested corporations it seems).
I told Salon that they would be held accountable for this horrible defeat the Dems will have now, including the loss of Congress, and everyone should do so.
They were among the first to promote this hot air balloon known as Barrack Obama.
-
@ Jim H
I sympathize with your position and I respect it.
I would suggest, however, that part of Obama's premise is that terms like "progressive," "liberal," and the like are obsolete.
I'm not saying you should support Obama, just offering the perspective of one who shared your reservations for similar reasons.
For instance, one of the lessons Obama shared was of not being able to enact legislation in Illinois because of the lack of a genuine popular mandate to do so.
I believe the lesson he drew from this was that politicians can only do so much without a real mandate.
So I take those "right of center" positions to be starting points, not ultimate goals.
I truly believe that Obama wants to be pushed leftward, but wants to begin from a position of consensus, adopting the most "progressive" he can without courting controversy.
This is his centrism and his pragmatism. But like his contention that Wright's mistake was in presuming America was static, so I believe Obama's positions are not static. They are beginnings, not ends.
I support him because I believe his vision is ultimately way, way more "progressive" than is Clinton's, but that his approach is moving the entire country leftward and then securing concrete "progressive" boons whereas Clinton's approach is to fight for those boons rather than attempting to create a genuine popular mandate for them.
I think both approaches are legitimate, but Obama's rings truer to me.
Again, not trying to shill, just offering my perspective.
-
Thank you Lolcait
it's about time the truth was told.
If Salon won't tell it you have every write to post it
-
@JERM - sorry facts don't support you.
Black median income rose 33% in the Clinton years and black poverty feel by over 20%.
A hell of a lot more than you can say for Barrack Obama's constituents in South Chicago, his district and area of his supposed "activism".
-
Whaddaya expect from idiots?
The truth about Obama is that he's generally to the right of Hillary in all his proposals: health care, global warming, the bailout of the subprime mortgages. I know it's fashionable in Obama circles to bash Clinton and thus find Obama the true progressive, but in one area after another, he's on the right
Yes, but these are the same people who won't shop at wal-mart when in fact target's been way worse according to the opinions of the unions.
These are the same people who think the only thing "progressives" do is throw anti-war demonstrations.
Ie, they're pompous morons.
-
@ShawnWM
ShawnWM: "The only thing he's wanted to talk about is race and war: pandering to black bigots and to nutty anti-war protest types."
Wow, you are off-the-rails insane. Black bigots? Did you not hear Obama's speech? The speech was a direct assault on the attitudes of black bigots.
Nutty anti-war protest types? I've got news for you, 2/3 of the country is unabashedly against the war. The other 1/3 is abashedly so.
ShawnWM: "Go away Nobama. Nobody wants you except the nuts and the domestic terrorists who compose your support groups."
"Domestic terrorists?" That's awesome! I'm a domestic terrorist then! (I dropped a "bomb" in the bathroom earlier today...)