Prometheus 6

This part was mostly on point:

The analogy Clinton was implying was obvious: I'm Lyndon Johnson, unlovely doer; he's Martin Luther King, charismatic dreamer. Vote for me if you want results.

Forty years ago, that arrangement -- white president enacting African-American dreams -- was necessary because discrimination denied blacks their own autonomous political options. Today, that arrangement -- white liberals acting as tribune for blacks in return for their political loyalty -- is a demeaning anachronism. That's what the fury at Hillary was all about, although no one was willing to say so explicitly.

The King-Johnson analogy is dead because the times are radically different. Today an African-American can be in a position to wield the emancipation pen -- and everything else that goes along with the presidency: from making foreign policy to renting out the Lincoln Bedroom (if one is so inclined). Why should African-American dreams still have to go through white liberals?

And he was very close to be 100% right when he noted how no one really wanted to say that out loud, especially none of those you've chronicled.

It happens.

I think we'll be seeing a lot more of this "reasonable conservatives who deplore the coded racial language that Democrats Bill and Hillary Clinton are using to win" stuff as it gets closer to looking like Clinton will get the nomination.

This is a perfect gift for them in their efforts to pick off religious or other fairly conservative Black folks who agree with much more of the Republican party platform than they do the Democratic party platform... but who don't vote for Republicans mainly because... they use coded (and not so coded) racist language to win. Six of one, half dozen of the other now, no?

Plus all the "Blacks vs Latinos" stuff, which is likely to be pushed even more by Clinton supporters and surrogates as it gets into California and Florida and like places. That too will be taken advantage of by Republicans, I have no doubt.

Krauthammer, Will, Brooks... are just the beginning.

I'll probably vote Green or something, but... what's up with Bloomberg?

They do it on purpose, P6. They write stuff that proves they aren't stupid and follow it up with something entirely wrong to manipulate their readers. It works like this:

Statement A: Obviously true
Statement B: Entirely reasonable
Statement C: Batshit crazy.

If the reader isn't paying attention, he thinks Statement C is explained and justified by the earlier statements. Like this:

Statement A: We were attacked by terrorists on 9-11 (obviously true)
Statement B: Saddam Hussein is attempting to acquire dangerous weapons (entirely reasonable)
Statement C: We have no choice but to invade Iraq and occupy it for the next 50 years or so.

Oh, I know there's statements (very plural) in Charles' hit piece. And that's what it is for him. I just had to note the common hit which I extract from all the other bs because of its salience. Even with that, there are batshit droppings in what I lifted for preservation. I just couldn't throw this baby..

discrimination denied blacks their own autonomous [the] political options | that arrangement [of] white liberals acting as tribune for blacks in return for their political loyalty is a demeaning | Today an African-American can be in [the] position

out with the murky bath water.

So, to get us all up to speed, Hillary was clearly saying:

It took a [WHITE] president... It will take a [WHITE] president.

George "John Wayne" Bush (projecting) and had lots of conversations with people who think like Hillary:

There's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self-govern. I reject that. I reject that strongly... I believe that people whose skins aren't necessarily -- are a different color than white can self-govern.

Look how far we've come.

One of the long-term inheritances of this period [between 1880 and 1920]is this notion that American democracy isn't just for any chance comers; that in the phraseology of the time, there is such a thing as fitness or unfitness for self-government . And that's written into our political culture very deeply, as early as 1790...  only those who are "free white persons"

Personally, I'm going to leave the fuss over that specific remark by Ms. Clinton alone. I think some of the other things her campaign has said or done are worse.

Somewhere--I forget where and when--I saw our host write something to the effect of, "Just because we came to the same conclusion, don't assume my reasoning was the same as yours."

That's mighty advice, especially when reading Mr. Krauthammer.

Indeed... The motivations are clearly different. But there's no harm in wishing both sides in the "who's more racist" game will knock each other out. Maybe it's just me but I can't resist a "damn, that was good punch" even I'm not rooting FOR either boxer, the one in the red or the blue corner, per se. I do have to admit that after all the things done by Hillary's campaign to pick on our little brother Barack, I was hoping somebody would knock the taste out her mouth, the bag out from under her eyes...  Then as soon as Charles act up, I want him to get the same beatdown, too.  It's a vicious cycle.

Somewhere--I forget where and when--I saw our host write something to the effect of, "Just because we came to the same conclusion, don't assume my reasoning was the same as yours."

On the front page. I was where "Don't lie to Black folks etc" is now.

Krauthammer Is not an ally.

Of course not. Neither is Hillary and if she ever was, it's time to revoke that card. To hell with lifetime memberships devoid of a lifetime of unambiguous achievement. Which is funny... when I posted about how Hillary is wrong on civil rights citing her curious phrase from the Nevada debate -- namely, "MLK's dreams have been realized" (as in all said and done, Hallelujah!! We Have Overcome, been to the Mountain and got the T-shirt) -- I was criticized for attacking an ally.

My question: What kind of ally pulls the kind of bs Campaign Hillary has?

With friends like that, you don't need enemies.

"No person is your friend who demands your silence, or denies your right to grow." - Alice Walker

Get the picture? The whole idea behind blaming Obama for the bs Campaign Hillary started is a demand for our silence. Even worst is the expectation. They expect Obama to "wait his turn" which is ironic considering how I heard conversations about which would happen first - [white] woman president or black president.  It's ironic this "wait your turn" business considering the history of WHITE WOMEN first belief, as noted in the critiques of Gloria Steinem's piece which was more Rosanne Barr than Peggy McIntosh.

As you know the demand for our silence to the indignities we've been subjected to great or small was, at its core, their insistence that we stay in our place.  Echoing Dr. King (I've re-read and posted Temple3's exploration of MLK'S Nationalisms):

That day is all over - i.e. the day when Black folk scratch where they don't itch, laugh when ain't sh*t funny and hold their peace, lips closed together, tightly, when we know there are all kinds of reasons Why Black People Tend To Shout .

Pardon my rant... 

Pardon my rant...

Are you kidding? What's to pardon?

And no, I'm not willing to ' wait'. Wait for what? Not under these circumstances. Not under these conditions. Not under this playbook. No way.

was right to seize the moment while his star(dom) is hot no matter how much experience he has or doesn't.  What happens if we have another 8 year president if he took the "wait my turn at the back of the bus" attitude?  Absolutely no gaurantee he would even be on the political map in that kind of time frame, let alone the right-to-left pendulum swing that's bound to happen.

The irony has been noted:  Andy Young was kickin' it with the young man King, reportedly all of 26 years old when he stepped up and stepped into the movement.  Obama is much older than that and, contrary to other bs out there, is not new to "how Washington works" which, of course, was never nowhere close to the kind of excuse then or now to strike against white candidates.

Obama is much older than that and, contrary to other bs out there, is not new to "how Washington works" which, of course, was never nowhere close to the kind of excuse then or now to strike against white candidates.

And even if he is, so what? If nominated, he gets to choose a #2 who can be all sorts of Washington insider. Mr. Bush was pretty damn green when he hit town, wasn't he?

It's not my arbitrary criteria, as noted via the non-strike clause.

Also heard, accepted, understood, and fully agreed with.

I have to confess that I had reservations about Mr. Obama's relative lack of experience in Washington. I'm over them.