Browse By

Political Monday Debate – Barack vs. Hillary

Barak and Hilary Debate

I know it’s Tuesday, but I was away yesterday and I would really like to have this Political Monday/Monday Debate this week, so we’ll pretend it’s Monday here on the ABW. After all, according to recent commenters we are all retards, anyway.

[sidenote – yes, I banned him, and I went back and disemvoweled most of what he posted.]

For months now, there have been two clear frontrunners on the Democratic party side: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. It’s interesting that, in many ways, these two people are vying for much the same slice of the populace, yet they are very different and don’t seem to like each other much.

I don’t think it’s a forgone conclusion that one of them will get the nomination. But I do have a strong feeling that, if one of them gets it, there’s been too much bad blood and snarking for the other to slip into the VP slot. So I guess all of us will have to make a choice — no double minority action for us!

Thus this debate. Which of these two candidates do you prefer and why? And if you don’t like either of them, this is your chance to tell us why. Gut feelings and surface impressions are okay, but specific reasons and links or quotes are even better. If you’re for a candidate, persuade us on-the-fencers with your strong conviction. If you’re against, do the same.

The Rules for this debate/discussion are the same as in general. Be passionate but not rude, attempt to refrain from ad hominem attacks, remember that the other commenters are real people, assume high intelligence until others prove you wrong.

36 thoughts on “Political Monday Debate – Barack vs. Hillary”

  1. Ico says:

    Well… purely on the subject of civil rights? Hillary Clinton. Her outreach to people of color is nothing new to the democratic party; but her campaign staff proves she doesn’t just pander. Her staff has more PoC than any other campaign:

    The reason I don’t like Obama in this area is that while he’s great on rights for PoC, I feel he ignores women. If he is wondering why women voters all flock to Hillary, it’s because she actually addresses women’s issues. I’ve yet to see him do so. He snubbed the BlogHer conference in his hometown of Chicago. And the majority of his top-paid campaign staff are male.

    Hillary’s staff skews female (the only staff that does so), but is still fairly balanced. I think it’s important to “walk the walk” as well as just talk, and in terms of hiring, Hillary does so. Barack, w/ regard to women’s issues, does neither.

    There’s also that whole issue with McLurkin. I have many friends and a sister who are homosexual. While I recognize it as a (poor) political move, a lot of people are outraged by it and see it as a sign of Obama’s willingness to throw one group under the bus in favor of another. Are other candidates above such behavior? Probably not. But it still reflects badly on him, IMO.

    Then there’s the matter of missed votes — not just in the current term, but in his past. He has voted “present” on some issues in order to avoid trouble. I don’t really see this as taking a stance, nor do I see it as taking a stance when he misses a vote and then goes after another candidate for making the wrong choice. To me, this is Obama’s version of “triangulation.” As with the McLurkin stuff, he can play both sides by not really taking either.

    The only reason I point this out is that Obama has this reputation for bringing a “new kind of politics.” It’s a nice idea, but I think believing it is rather naive. Dennis Kucinich would bring a new kind of politics. From what I’ve seen of Obama’s campaign, he’s very much a politician.

    But as we all know already, Hillary is, too. I’m not going to leave her out of this. Her strategy is slightly different, but it amounts to the same stuff. Instead of not voting, she votes the wrong way and then rationalizes it endlessly. Her campaign is quite good at that. Her Iraq vote — IMO — was a political calculation, like many of her votes. She waits and tests the political winds before casting a vote, which is not taking a stance by any means. She is a pure, calculating, politician.

    On foreign policy, I prefer Obama. While I suspect a big part of Hillary’s hawkishness is a show to compensate for her gender (a BIG hurdle to overcome on national security, sadly), it nonetheless makes me uncomfortable. Obama’s made some clumsy hawkish statements (Pakistan), but so obviously attempts at being tough that I’m not too worried about him. I think he’s a dove, and that is good. Hillary may be a moderate and she may not; it’s hard to tell when so much of her campaign is posturing to get votes. There are some issues that I believe she is solidly progressive on (civil rights, women’s rights, the environment, health care, education), but things that do not fall into those categories I think she will go any direction on. Whatever society and polling indicates to be the most expedient.

    So there you go, I don’t trust either of them. But on domestic policy I prefer Hillary, and her record shows me that she is an extremely hard worker who gets things done. She’s missed fewer votes than any other presidential candidate (compare to Obama, who has missed many). If she gets elected I know she will accomplish things, and she is solidly progressive on many of the issues that matter to me.

    I think I’ve mentioned in previous posts that 90 percent of the time the candidates vote the same. I think Hillary is the best candidate for women, PoC, and the environment, which is why I prefer her. But I don’t trust her on foreign policy. No candidate is ideal.

    Now if Obama were better on women’s issues, better on animal welfare, and better at just getting things done (sheer tactical efficiency), he might have my vote. And he will have it in the general, if he wins the primary. But in the primary I am voting for Hillary.

  2. Nick says:

    Hillary killed herself for me when she spent a huge amount of time on the whole Grand Theft Auto “Hot Coffee” thing. I found this troubling for two reasons:

    1. It shows that Hillary is willing to put “family values” over free speech. I want the government to take no role in being the morality police, and Hillary has put herself firmly in the “pro-deciding-what-you-get-to-watch” camp.

    2. It showed a VERY basic lack of understanding about technology and the concept of user-generated content, and it’s very important to me that our leaders “get” technology; we have this huge problem now where legislators are making laws about the Internet and other technologies when they don’t get the first thing about them. This is going to be a major problem down the line.

  3. Pin21 says:

    Barak vs. Hilary?

    Their names are Barack and Hillary, but maybe this is some sort of joke I don’t get. =)~

  4. Pin21 says:

    Cool. It changed. Feel free to delete my posts.

  5. the angry black woman says:

    yes, thanks for pointing that out. I am still incredibly tired from my weekend. I forgot to double check because I ALWAYS misspell their names.

  6. Carpenter says:

    While Obaama and Clinton are the frontrunners, I tend to think the real bad blood seems to be between Edwards and Clinton, I actaully think Clinton and Obama do a good job of debating wile maintaining civility.
    I think Obama has a good handle on a lot of issues Clinton doesn’t even talk about, like prison reform. I actually don’t think Clinton is overcompensating for her gender though, there are lots of female politicians, and some of them are just hawkish.

  7. Carpenter says:

    Please excuse my spelling.

  8. Ico says:

    “I actually don’t think Clinton is overcompensating for her gender though, there are lots of female politicians, and some of them are just hawkish.”

    Yes, but “Commander in Chief” is much more connected to the military than just Senator or Congresswoman. There is a definite “toughness” threshold that must be passed. I’ve been following the media and the political punditry closely on this, and they’ve all watched to see if Clinton can pass that test. If a woman can be strong enough to be “Commander in Chief.” It’s a very different thing from running for Congress.

  9. Sandra says:

    I lack the informative/supportive links, but I’m still wishy-washy on this. Originally, Obama won my vote because he took a stand and asked for the resignation of someone for racist comments (I think. I tried to dig up the link but yapoo doesn’t seem to have it anymore). And I thought with a black man in the oval office, there’d be a harder line on people behaving like idiots like that.

    Then Obama had that whole fiasco w/ the anti-gay minister and he lost my vote. Being gay, I take that stuff very personally (and some of it has a direct affect on me and my family). He hit the one trigger point for me and it’ll be a struggle for him to recover from this one.

    On the flip side, Hillary worries me, not because of her politics (I think most of them are peas in a pod and I’d rather have Edwards but he’s not really in the running at this point). But I worry that if Hillary wins the primary, republicans will come out in droves to keep her out of the office. There was another yapoo article today about how many republicans dislike her (like 78% vs only about 43% who don’t like Obama):


  10. Veronica says:

    May I ask for more detail about there having been too much bad blood and snarkiness for either one to consider the other for VP? My impression of the campaign is that they’ve been almost boringly nice to each other, which is kind of a refreshing change, especially because I feel like we should make the Republicans work to find nasty things to see about Democratic candidates rather than giving them all their ammo during the primaries. Have I missed some important recent developments? Although I agree that the Dems will not run a white-man-less ticket, so Edwards might have VP locked up anyway, provided he doesn’t come from behind to take the nomination (remember, Bill Clinton was polling 3rd too, early in the ’92 primaries).

    I personally veer toward Clinton because she’s a woman (I’m not saying that anybody else should follow my lead here or that it’s less important to get a black person in office–just being honest about my biases) and also because I think she’s got more political juice than Obama. I know I’m in the minority on this, but I don’t want a “fresh outsider” as the most powerful politician in the country. I want someone who knows where the bodies are buried and exactly what levers to pull on other politicians to get results.

    I like Edwards because he every so often acknowledges that poverty is a major issue in the US. Honestly, I’m OK with whichever of the three of them take the nomination. I’ll ultimately vote for whomever comes up.

  11. Ico says:

    The boringly nice to each other lasted through much of the summer, but lately there have been a lot of attacks between them. Clinton called Obama’s foreign policy naive and irresponsible. Obama called Clinton’s foreign policy Bush-Cheney lite. Things have escalated since, with both of them attacking each other. There’s been a lot of political maneuvering on both sides.

    Clinton took one of Obama’s comments on Pakistan and tried to spin it into something hawkish and crazy.

    Obama took Clinton’s vote on Iran and tried to spin it into something hawkish and crazy.

    And so forth. Political posturing galore. Some of it is media spin, but then again, some of it is also the candidates *using* media spin.

  12. Ico says:

    Sandra, w/ regards to the electibility argument, there’s a flip side to that. If Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, he may have a very real chance to win New York (his home state), and perhaps parts of the northeast. That, at least, is the argument I have heard from some people who are afraid of a Giuliani victory. Pollwise, the only candidate who beats Giuliani on this terrain is Hillary, who also hails from New York and is very popular there.

    That said, I don’t think electibility arguments should determine who we vote for. The general election will be shaped by all kinds of different things, factors we just can’t predict. If you believe in Obama, or Hillary, or whomever, I think you should vote for them in the primary based on their merits. :)

  13. Carpenter says:

    I’m sure Hillary gets held to all kinds of unfair standards. Any woman will be unfairly accused of amaturism and softness, in fact so will any black candidate(this has already happened to Obama as well with that intellectually lazy BS). However I think both Clintons are just pretty tough, Bill bombed Iraq to hell for years and air struck afganistan and went into Bosnia, I think at the hert the Clintons just have an interfering kind of policy-just like at their heart they have a pretty neo-liberal kind of policy despite being called commies by the right.

    I’m glad I get to pick between Obama and Clinton becuase I think they are both good cadidates, the republicans however look like they picked up their candidate pool in front of St. Jude’s Senior Center for Utter Bastards.

  14. claire says:

    i agree with veronica about hillary. i want a slimebag in office, as long as it’s a COMPETENT slimebag … and of course, as long as she’s MY slimebag.

    i also don’t think a little snark and criticism precludes peep and veep lovey-dovey in the future. things always get a little snarky in the primaries, and most peep ‘n’ veep couples don’t like each other all that much. look at clinton and gore.

  15. Ico says:

    You’re absolutely right about the unfair standards for both of them. Hillary’s gotten all kinds of disgusting news coverage about the amount of cleavage she shows, the pantsuits she wears, etc., and I can’t count how many times I’ve seen people comment either on whether Obama is “black enough,” or whether a black contender can win the election. I feel like they’re both being tested in ways none of the other contenders have to deal with. It’s a shame.

  16. J. Wiley says:

    “The reason I don’t like Obama in this area is that while he’s great on rights for PoC, I feel he ignores women. ”

    I have the same misgivings. The Donnie McClurkin fiasco made me uncomfortable, as well. It made me wonder, “Is THIS the sort of man who would try to kiss up to the Christian right at the expense of LGBT folks? Possibly.”

    To be perfectly honest, I’m not excited by Barack OR Hilary. In my heart of hearts, I truly do prefer Dennis Kucinich (he’s the ONLY candidate who would address animal welfare at all, and that’s a pressing problem that’s been woefully ignored for far too long) and Mike Gravel (in that order. The fact that Kucinich’s animal welfare concerns give him an edge, for me).
    Realistically speaking, though, I know that there will come a time when I’ll have to choose between giving my vote to a Republican candidate (I’m betting it’ll be Giuliani, unfortunately) or a Democrat. I don’t think I’d ever vote Republican, and I’d prefer the Democrat I vote for to be Obama.
    I don’t care for Hilary Clinton. I don’t care for the way she voted in favor of the Iraq War and THEN refused to admit that it was the wrong decision. I don’t care for the fact that she’s so unabashedly pro-death penalty (Obama is also pro-death penalty, but less so.). I didn’t care for her maddening preoccupation with video game censorship.
    On the other hand, I don’t care for the fact that Obama cozies up to the bigoted Christian right and seems to regard women’s concerns as a non-issue.

    Between the two of them, though, I prefer Obama…by a narrow margin.

  17. Cody says:

    I don’t like either. It’s most a gut feeling, but it’s also because they’re both pansies. They’re pandering to the religious right, which means they’re making concessions in order to get a vote. I don’t like that. I like candidates who have convictions and stick with them, even if it means alienating a certain demographic. I like Dennis Kucinich more than either, but I don’t think he’ll get the Democratic nomination. He’s too progressive. I’ll probably end up voting Libertarian, since I don’t like Giuliani, either, for the same reason. Some of his beliefs fit mine, but he follows the Republican line a little too closely.

  18. Josh Jasper says:

    Still leaning towards Obama at this point. Despite the McLurkin thing, he seems more honest, and less of a hawk. I’ll give him a chance to keep himself away from any more anti-GLBT activists. If he fails at that, Clinton gets my nod out of the two.

  19. AJ says:

    I like having these kinds of choices for President. I would be very proud to tell my daughter when she’s old enough to understand that I voted for either of these candidates.

    What scares me the most at the moment, however, are two things–world affairs: Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan; and domestic affairs: housing crisis/credit crunch/higher food and energy costs.

    I practically spit up my breakfast over the weekend when I learned that Pakistan has 30+ nukes. The Supreme Court Chief Justice is under house arrest, and the cops are beating and arresting lawyers. I don’t know what we should be doing over there, and it gives me night terrors to think that our government probably doesn’t know, either.

    At home, there are hard times ahead. Forget trying to sell your house for a while, and $100/barrel oil means everything is going to cost more.

    More than ever, we need experience at the helm. Hilary’s got that, and we get the added bonus of Bill lending “advice” when needed. I’m not afraid to say that I see this as a two for one deal.

  20. Ico says:

    Kucinich is good. I haven’t read up on his background nearly as much as the others, only because he’s such a longshot candidate, but I’ve liked what I’ve seen. He seems sincere and genuinely progressive. Wish he got more debate time and more news coverage because he has some important things to say.

    W/ regards to animal welfare, J. Wiley, check the voting records and HSUS candidate scorecards and suchlike and you’ll see that Hillary, while no Kucinich, is pretty decent on animal welfare for a mainstream dem. She has cosponsored pro-animal legislation in the past and was endorsed by the Humane Society when running for Senate. She’s no Byrd or Santorum, but she’s not bad.

  21. nojojojo says:

    I’ll vote for Hillary if Barack loses the primary, but that’s it. I hate her for her husband’s sins — which is perhaps unfair, but AFAIC it’s inevitable with any candidate who’s connected by close family ties to the presidency. (Though even I never dreamt that Dumbya would be so much worse than his father…)

    Bill Clinton did some things that were absolutely horrible for people of color, women, and the poor in this country, like that welfare reform legislation. Mothers were forced back to work without adequate childcare for their kids or enough training/support to actually get out of poverty, all to combat some hinky perception of black inner-city “welfare queens” that the Republicans used to tar and feather everyone on welfare even though most people on welfare are rural whites. Also, I’m still struggling to pay bills every month because legislation that helped make college loans more prevalent than grants, and gave credit card companies free reign to do some damned unscrupulous things, happened on Bill’s watch. And Hillary stood by her man and smiled while it happened, so I don’t see her as any great advocate for women, PoC, children, or the poor. I don’t give a damn how many women are in her campaign; that’s a meaningless publicity gesture. Her record, and Bill’s because he will have an influence on her decisions if she’s elected, are a much bigger problem for me.

    (I’m continually struck by Alan Greenspan recently calling Clinton the best Republican president we’ve ever had. I agree totally. People harp on the fact that he balanced the budget, without noting he balanced it on the backs of the poor and middle class.)

    All that said… what truly frightens me right now is foreign affairs, and I think Hillary has both the experience and the respect to deal with foreign leaders and possibly extract us from Iraq (and Iran, if Dumbya gets us into that mess) with minimal pain. I’m not sure about that with Barack.

    And Barack showed a serious lack of judgment with the whole Donnie Mcwhatsisface thing; you just can’t be doing stuff like that while running for the Democratic nomination. It’s stupid. That also makes me worry about his inexperience.

  22. Ampersand says:

    Given this choice — and unfortunately, maybe this is the choice we’ve been given — I’ll vote for Obama.

    Given, Obama does seem to be much more talk than trousers on a lot of issues. And I’m furious at him over his willingness to shake hands with anti-queer forces, and he has way too few women in powerful positions in his campaign. And in their public statements, Obama and Clinton often say much the same things — which reflects not that their views are the same, but that they’re both trying to sway the votes of the same group of undecided voters.

    But Obama’s foreign policy advisers are people like Samantha Powers — people who were smart enough to know that invading Iraq was a horrible mistake before we went in, and said so. People who currently have no significant voice in “serious” foreign policy debates. An Obama presidency could change that — not just during his presidency, but for many years afterward — and boost the careers and voices of some foreign policy experts who would resist the knee-jerk rush to war.

    Clinton’s foreign policy advisers are the same old bunch of war-favoring idiots; admittedly, the Democratic version rather than the Republican version. But they’re still part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    There are a lot of other important issues at stake, but considering how many tens of thousands of Iraqis have died because of our invasion, and how many tens of thousands (hundreds?) more will die if we embroiled in a war with Iran, I think that this may be the single most important distinction between Obama and Clinton.

  23. Ceci says:

    I know that this might be possibly a strange answer depending on all the other eloquent statements here, but I don’t want either of them to win the primary. I would like Gore to run because symbolically and politically, he is the most viable for the white house.

    Knowing that Gore has said repeatedly that he will not run in the 2008 election, I would have to probe deeper into the platforms of both Obama and Clinton to make a choice in my state’s primary. I’m not hot about either of them. However, I have an open mind. I am willing to hear more about both before I can side with them.

    But, I’ll tell you now: I think Hillary is too much of a hawk. I honestly do not know what she is going to do with the aftermath of the Iraq War if she does become president.

    Those are my thoughts.

    And, I thank ABW for her words and insights on diversity. It is nice to know that there are eloquent voices out there speaking about race. :)

    I wish you, ABW, the best in your struggle and in your message.

  24. Tom Head says:

    I favor Obama because I like his background and record better; Hillary Clinton has lived the political life for decades, while Obama spent 11 years as a constitutional law professor and civil rights attorney. But I don’t dislike Clinton the way I used to.

    Definitely a bummer if this isn’t a double-minority ticket, though. If Obama wins, for example, Janet Napolitano would be a great VP choice from where I sit–she could help carry the Southwest, which would allow Obama to get the 270 electoral votes without carrying Ohio or Florida, if necessary.

    And if Hillary Clinton wins…well, part of me is thinking she’d be a fool not to pick Obama himself, because you could almost print the Obama 2016 stickers now. But even if there’s bad blood, she has mentioned the possibility of picking a Latino VP. Bill Richardson would be a good choice to consider in that role, from where I sit, and–once again–could be helpful in the Southwest.

    If Hillary Clinton runs with a white running mate or Barack Obama runs with a male running mate, I’ll be disappointed. Maybe that’s a sign that my expectations were too high, but when I saw the announcement that John Kerry picked beaming white male John Edwards as his running mate in 2004, I wanted to throw my television out the window.

  25. Tom Head says:

    Re bad blood, you probably know this but I can only suggest that in 1980 there was a Republican contender who called Ronald Reagan dangerous, excessively conservative, etc., suggested that he had no understanding of economics, and so forth. Even coined the then-derisive term “Reaganomics.” His name was George H.W. Bush. So no matter what Clinton and Obama do to each other over the next few months, I wouldn’t write Obama off as a running mate for Clinton. I might write Clinton off as a running mate for Obama, though, simply because (a) no geographic advantage to picking a VP nominee from New York, and (b) she might overshadow him during the general election.

  26. Ico says:

    I highly doubt Obama will pick a woman as a running mate. Edwards probably would (because a white man winning would disappoint on that level, so he’d try to make up for it). But given both Obama’s general disinterest on women’s issues and the predictions of political analysts, a female VP is unlikely. He’s already running into prejudice as a black man, and he wouldn’t complicate it by adding in a woman. Some people think he might pick Edwards, though.

    I wouldn’t completely rule out Obama as a VP choice for Hillary. Some political pundits have called it likely, some have said no way, too much bad blood. Richardson’s name comes up a lot, too. Especially w/ his recent debate performances, some people think he’s aiming for Hillary’s VP. Then again, she might also pick someone entirely different.

  27. Veronica says:

    Ooh, yes, Tom, I remember! Wasn’t it Bush who coined the term “voodoo economics”?

    And Amp, I have to tell you that “more talk than trousers” has just made my top five favorite expressions of all time.

  28. Vylar Kaftan says:

    No candidate I actually want will ever win a nomination. So it doesn’t really matter that much to me.

    Also, I’m pretty sure Hillary will be nominated and she’ll win. I’m mostly okay with that. I thought her first presidency from 1992-1998 wasn’t too bad.

    She’ll spend her term fighting fires that the Republicans set, and she’ll take the blame as things happening now get “uncovered” by the media which isn’t reporting them now. In the meantime, though, she might accomplish a thing or two, especially if Congress stays blue early in her term.

    Politics makes a lot more sense now that I realize that government has nothing to do with voting and that news is fiction. :)

  29. Mother Laura says:

    Neither is perfect, but I would be happy with either as Pres, and definitely hope they team up so the other one is VP.

    If I had my druthers Hillary would get the top job because of experience, and the fact that she is more aware of POC issues than he is of women’s issues.

    (Also I was unimpressed with Barack not being able to admit a screw up on the anti gay minister invitation–but then she does the same about having voted for war in Iraq).

    Thanks for posing the question–I learned a lot from the comments.

  30. Mother Laura says:

    Also thank you very much for giving them equal treatment with the first names–I get very tired of the usual Hillary v. Obama which is a major dis to her and women in general.

  31. Nita says:

    Mother Laura, Hillary herself uses the term ‘Hillary’… if you feel it’s a ‘major dis to her and women in general’ take it up with her campaign.

    As for using Barack versus Hillary in the first place, black men have always been belittled through use of their first name instead of being called ‘Mister’. I think ‘Obama versus Clinton’ or ‘Obama versus H. Clinton’ is much more acceptable than pretending to be on a first name basis with two candidates who are perceived as belonging to two historically disenfranchised groups (Obama for black men, and Clinton for white women).

    Who here is referring to Edwards as just ‘John’, Biden as just ‘Joe’, Kucinich as just ‘Dennis’ and Richardson as just ‘Bill’?

  32. Ico says:

    While I agree that the first vs. last name issue is problematic, I also think that the uniqueness of names has something to do with it. “Barack” is pretty unique. I don’t know of any other Baracks. “John” is probably the most common male name in the English language, and the second most common is probably “Joe.”

    Some of the white male candidates with unique names, like Mitt and Rudy, do get referred by those names on occasion. I’ve especially seen it with Rudy.

    Which isn’t to say there aren’t underlying issues with names here — there definitely are (women having to take husband’s names, therefore being forced to use first name to distinguish themselves a la Hillary; blacks being addressed by first name historically in a demeaning way).

  33. Gera says:

    I am an African American women and while the thought of having a women leader is comforting, I simply don’t like Hillary Clinton, although I did like Bill. I see her as contrived and calculating. Whereas I see Barack Obama as genuine. His meeting with the anti-gay Mclurkin reflected his Christian values, although it wasn’t a smart political move it doesn’t mean he is anti-gay. Christian values have varying degrees of practice. There is a good article in the 11/26/07 issue of The New Yorker focusing on Obama but reflecting on H. Clinton as well. I think despite all the issues- women’s issues, gay issues, foreign issues, etc.-Obama likes challenge and displays a willingness to look deeper into viewpoint different than his own. Some of Hillary’s dismissive comments show otherwise. I haven’t been involved in the political arena for a long time but something about Barack (besides his color) has me intrigued. I have read his books, read articles that support him or trash his. I have read some Republican proproganda and I must say that in general I side with them on some issues (immigration). My second choice would be John Edwards because woman-to-woman I just can’t relate to Hillary.

  34. Greg Jones says:

    Blacks learning
    Hillary Was AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964
    While a republican and “Goldwater Girl”

    A March 12, 2007 article written by acclaimed Washington columnist Robert Novak sheds a very revealing light on the true sentiment of Hillary Clinton during the peak of the Civil Rights Movement. Clinton recently was found to have minimized the great and monumental strides taken by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by stating that it was Lyndon B. Johnson, then president, who should receive the credit for civil rights progress including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
    In an attempt to attract black support Hillary Clinton regularly shares her ‘civil rights experience’ during every speech given to blacks audiences. Novak writes of one such speech at Selma’s First Baptist Church on the 42nd anniversary of the “bloody Sunday” freedom march there, where Sen. Clinton declared: “As a young woman, I had the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963. My youth minister from our church took a few of us down on a cold January night to hear [King]. . . . And he called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the civil rights pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union.” But Novak’s article states that there’s a big problem with her statement.
    The fact is, in 1963, the same period of time she speeks of at all black church appearances, not only was Hillary Clinton a republican, but she was also a staunch supporter of republican Senator Barry Goldwater, well known as a segregationist and one of the most vocal senators adamently against the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is why he lost in his presidential bid to Lyndon B. Johnson. Novak writes “…how then could she be a ‘Goldwater Girl’ in the next year’s presidential election?” He continues, “…she described herself in her memoirs as ‘an active Young Republican’ and ‘a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit.’ (Hillary worked on Golwater’s presidential campaign)
    Novak adds, “As a politically attuned honor student, she must have known that Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined Southern Democratic segregationists opposing the historic voting rights act of 1964 inspired by King. Hillary headed the Young Republicans at Wellesley College. The incompatibility of those two positions of 40 years ago was noted to me (Novak) by Democratic old-timers who were shocked by Sen. Clinton’s temerity in pursuing her presidential candidacy.” Novak adds, “What Hillary Clinton said at Selma is significant because it betrays her campaign’s panicky reaction to the unexpected rise of Sen. Obama as a serious competitor for the Democratic nomination.

    Clinton’s plans were transformed by the advent of Obama, an African-American threatening the hard allegiance of black voters forged by Bill Clinton. On one hand, the Clinton campaign has attacked Obama and his supporters. On the other hand, she has sought to solidify her civil rights credentials.

    While Clinton was re-inventing her past, her road to the White House is not going as planned. Instead of a steady procession to coronation at the Denver convention, she is involved in a real struggle against credible opponents led by Obama. No wonder she and her handlers were tempted to imply the existence long ago of a young lady in Chicago’s suburbs who never really existed.”

    We greatly appreciate Mr. Novak’s findings which bring one main thought to mind. Wake up Black America! DON’T BE FOOLED ! The fact is, Hillary was AGAINST the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that Dr. King died for. As a ‘Goldwater Girl’ she was even against Lyndon B. Johnson, the very person she now gives the credit to for Dr. King getting to the mountaintop. She has worked extremely hard to hide many truths about her past, including ordering that her 92 page college thesis that she wrote at Wellesley College be ‘sealed’ and unavailable to the public, an order forced upon the college by Bill Clinton while president, although all senior thesis’ at Wellesley have been available for public reading for over 100 years, except one….Hillary Rodham Clinton’s.
    Reports have stated that information in her ‘secret thesis’ could be the ‘Swift Boat’ ammo to be used by the Republican Party against her should she become the nominee. (read more about ‘secret thesis’ at MSNBC)
    In addition to re-inventing her past, the most obvious new Clinton strategy is to use ‘token Negroes’ like BET Founder Bob Johnson and Magic Johnson to name a couple, to attack and discredit Barack Obama, a tactic which many blacks find additionally offensive, calling these black Clinton cronies ‘sell-outs’. Spread the word….share the facts. The Clinton’s have been conning the black community for a long time and are NOT what they claim to be. I bet they go home at night, pour some wine, kick their feet up and just laugh like crazy about what big black suckers we are. But now, it’s time to prove them wrong !
    Greg Jones

  35. Ico says:

    This is silly. It’s a misleading hit piece. If you want to examine Hillary Clinton’s actual records while in office and as first lady re: civil rights, wonderful. But going back to her college days and the candidate she supported?

    Now, granted I don’t know Hillary’s history that well, but because she was a Goldwater girl and supported a candidate who voted against the Civil Rights Act, she herself was against it? That’s like saying that because elected officials whom I support voted for the Iraq war, I supported the Iraq war. I attended anti-war demonstrations and actively opposed it; plenty of people support candidates whose policies they do not 100 percent agree with.

    By the same ridiculous logic, you could say OMG Hillary Clinton used to be a Republican! Her true sentiments are all Republican! She’s no Democrat at all!

    People change. She’s obviously not Republican anymore, and hasn’t been for quite some time.

    Analyze her civil rights record if you like, but do it properly. Hit pieces like this don’t do anyone any credit. And they certainly don’t help Barack Obama. I love to see good, useful information about the candidates, but these kind of diatribes just alienate me from whoever is being supported.

  36. Ico says:

    A little bit more: Hillary’s family was Republican. Of course she grew up Republican, too, and switched to Democrat in college.

    Also fun fact: she’s been accused by conservatives of *gasp* aiding the Black Panthers in a trial during her college years. Oh, horrors! Funny how Hillary’s been accused of just about everything, huh? And deep in her heart she’s anti-black, yet has more people of color among her campaign staff than anyone else running for office (including Obama)! Oh, the machinations of this woman! Bet she hired all those PoC just to fool everybody into thinking she actually likes them. Depending on whose rant you prefer she’s either a Republican in disguise or a screaming crazy liberal, but either way she must be bad bad bad.

    Now in all seriousness, she did say some incredibly stupid things recently, and has been rightly criticized for it. But this sort of hit piece doesn’t help at all — it’s rank stupidity. I could show you dozens of similar pieces on Barack Obama and John Edwards, too — they pop up on political forums all the time, most of them as stupid as this tripe. OMG Obama is a Muslim! He wants to bomb Pakistan! Utter nonsense.

    If you actually take the time to examine their voting records and histories, all three candidates are much more alike than they are different. So don’t peddle your nonsense about. You’re as bad as people with the Obama-Muslim smears. Do something useful and examine critically the real history in the politicians’ records. There’s plenty there that deserves scrutiny, among all three candidates, and without the need for any of this.

Comments are closed.