Does anyone else find it odd that Hillary gets almost no credit for her African American support?

[Tom Rinaldo]

I am not saying that DUers deny it, but most virtually ignore it when it comes to assessing her liberal/progressive creds. I guess I am still a child of the 60's but I remember when white political leaders earning strong Black support was considered a badge of progressive honor.

Whenever issues of social and economic justice are raised by progressives, no one denies that African Americans bear a starkly disproportionate brunt of the burdens of injustice in American society. Throughout American history the status of African Americans has usually been the standard by which oppression and disenfranchisement in the United States has been measured. I consider Barack Obama's race as germain to measuring his progressive credentials precisely because of the life and social perspective that unavoidably comes with being a minority in America.

But there is almost universal silence by Progressives on this board about the affection and even loyalty so many African Americans have for both Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the explanations that leap to my mind about that are troubling. One is obvious. African Americans are seriously under represented in the population of netroots activists, so their collective perspective to the extent that it exists is not as visible online as are other progressive constituencies. When I attended the Yearly Kos Convention that was starkly evident from gazing upon the large overwhelmingly white crowd there gathered, even though it was taking place in a city, Chicago, with a large and active African American population.

Obviously I understand that there are many African American activists and/or voters who are not all that keen on the Clintons. There is no such thing as racial group think in the Democratic Party or anywhere else, but it is undeniable that Hillary Clinton is doing extremely well with African American voters relatively speaking. She currently has a solid lead for first place in the South Carolina primary that John Edwards won last time, even though Barack Obama is facing her this time, even though half of South Carolina's Democratic voters are Black.

The other explanation that comes to my mind for why Hillary Clinton gets hardly any progressive acknowledgment for arguably being the current chosen candidate for one of the most collectively disadvantaged voter blocs in America honestly gives me the creeps. That would be an attempt to discount African American voter support for Hillary as the result of those voters being insufficiently informed on the real issues that should be of concern to them. That to me would be white patrimony in spades.

[wyldwolf]

1. on the contrary. Some DUers deny it, or rather, deny the reasons for it are true

[BeyondGeography]

2. They're very well informed and they love Bill Clinton

AA females may even love Hillary. But without Bill, it's reasonable to conclude she wouldn't have nearly the same level of support.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. I Agree

But there is tremendous affection for Bill Clinton among (most) African Americans and that affection extends to his wife...

Most of my African American friends are absolutely torn between the two of them and it's interesting to see Barack Obama's "Audacity Of Hope" next to Hillary Clinton's "Living History" or Bill Clinton's "My Life" on their coffee tables...

[wndycty]

20. "They're very well informed and they love Bill Clinton" you might as well call us Black folks clean

. . .I'm glad you think Black folks are well informed.

[BeyondGeography]

22. Oh shaddup...I was responding to a point in the OP

"That would be an attempt to discount African American voter support for Hillary as the result of those voters being insufficiently informed on the real issues that should be of concern to them. That to me would be white patrimony in spades."

[wndycty]

23. I will not sit down, I will not shut up. . .

. . .no matter what you want. I was not raised that way.

[BeyondGeography]

25. Your point was lame

Try reading the whole post next time before rushing to judgment.

[Spirit of 34]

24. They're very well informed?

Huh? Look, I know a lot of Liberals like to put oppressed groups up on a pedestal, but Black voters (as a group) aren't necessarily better informed than White ones. I'm an advocate for the interests of the working-class, but I'm not naive enough to believe all my fellow workers (or even representatives of organized labor) are so well-informed and anyone they support just has to have something going for them. Even well-informed people make mistakes and political ignorance is pretty well-distributed throughout the race, ethnic and class spectrum, in my opinion.

I find this whole discussion of "African Americans are so great and they love Hillary" to be somewhat demeaning in a "Guilty Rich White Liberal Savior" kinda way. I think Black and White working people need to unite as a CLASS, and yeah, Black working-class folks got their own problems separate and distinct from White working-class folks, but they need to speak for themselves on those issues and take leadership. The role of White folks on Black issues should be one of support, not leadership.

[BeyondGeography]

28. Here I am defending the quality of black support for Hillary

This must be my good deed for the day.

:freak:

[polichick]

3. It's mentioned on msnbc a lot. nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. I was thinking more of non traditinal progressive media sourses like DU and other blogs

But thanks for pointing that out. I haven't been paying close attention to how cable and broadcast television has been covering this aspect of the campaign.

[ronnykmarshall]

4. She NO African American support.

No one supports her. PERIOD!

I read it here on DU.

[dmallind]

7. yes I know lots of black folks and none of them support Hillary so it's BS ;) NT

khkh

[Clintonista2]

8. Ronnyk, I read your comment before I read who the poster was and my first thought was:

Sandnsea must have posted it.

[ronnykmarshall]

14. Just wait ...

I'm sure he'll appear soon.

[ilovesunshine]

10. No doubt!

Thank G-D I have reality to fall back on.

Even if it's only my reality.

hehe.

[Adelante]

5. I do give her credit for it

I think Hillary's record on social issues is discounted across the board here, not only on that score.

[LostinVA]

11. Agreed nn/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Her record on social issues means absolutely squat if she continues

the war and refuses to disavow the neo-lib trade agreements that have devastated this country for 20 years.

But since she will continue the WOT and won't fix trade (not to mention healthcare) she is unacceptable.

She will run on social issues, just like Bill did, and once she has the votes in the bag she'll abandon the issues, just like Bill did, in order to keep the 'centrists' happy.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. African Americans lived through the same 8 years of the Bill Clinton Administration as anyone else

If they on the whole feel like he ran away from the social issues that matter to them after he got in office, they sure as hell aren't acting like it now.

[Spirit of 34]

41. Yep

And they're plenty of White Dems supporting her too, so what's your point? As I said before, White and Black voters are just as capable of making errors in judgement.

[Connie_Corleone]

6. Bill Clinton. eom

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Undoubtedly the first Clinton Administration is at the root, but...

...Hillary has rubbed a lot of elbows in the African American community herself by now. More to the point though, Bill Clinton is not given much progressive cred around here for his support in the African American community either, and increasingly both Clintons are being criticized collectively here.

[Spirit of 34]

38. Again, policies should matter when it comes to "progressive cred"

Not who likes or supports the candidate...or at least who supports them should be a secondary consideration.

Labor unions supported Bill, and yet he gave us shitty trade policy and destructive deregulation programs. Like I said before, all kinds of reasons to like or support a candidate and not all of them are good.

Mr. Clinton is not getting "progressive cred" b/c of his trade and economic policies (NAFTA and deregulation) and his aggressive foreign policy (Plan Colombia, Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, the Balkans, etc.)

Ms. Clinton is not getting it b/c of her association w/ Bill, as well as her IWR vote, saber-rattling foreign policy pronouncements regarding Iran and Syria, knee-jerk support for Israeli aggression, and little indication she will depart much from the neoliberal trade and economic policies of her husband.

"But Black folks like them" isn't a sufficient reason to zero out their authoritarian, pro-corporate and pro-imperial policies.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. I already agreed with your bottom line that we all need to weigh our options

based on how we judge the relative merit of each candidate and how we perceive that their election would likely affect our lives and the world. But I still thought this a topic worthy of discsussion since every voter in every voting bloc presumably should be doing the same, and when a strong pattern emerges in one constituency at odds with other data points (especially if that constituency has long been at the heart of most Democratic progressive coalitions), it is interesting to consider why.

[Spirit of 34]

13. Doesn't really matter to me

I think who supports a political leader is secondary to the actual positions and actions of that leader.

For instance, many white working-class people support Republicans-- that doesn't actually mean those Republicans are beneficial to the interests of white working-class people. Organized labor has supported many Democrats like Bill Clinton and John Kerry who ended up screwing them on trade, like NAFTA, GATT and PNTR for China. Many Muslims supported George W. Bush in 2000 and look where that got 'em. And so on and so on.

Point is people-- whether voting blocs, organizations, other groups, or as individuals-- support candidates for a whole panalopy of reasons, some good, some bad, some neutral...self-interest (real or perceived), downright selfishness, ideology, fear, hope, naivete, ignorance, religion, culture, personality, sentimentality, tactical or strategic concerns, etc. And while it might be useful to analyze the reasons different individuals or groups support this or that candidate, ultimately you have to make your own decision independent of who's supporting who, based on your own reasons, whatever those may be.

Also, as an aside, I'm a bit suspicious about white people who scrupulously avoid the term "Black". Tells me either they didn't grow up around Black people or are ultra-PC...Black isn't a dirty word, ya know?

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. I certainly agree with your bottom line

But I do factor in that the Black community in America has a long progressive history and tradition, and a relatively good track record of consistently backing socially and economically conscious candidates who do tend to represent their actual self interests, at least more so than their viable alternative choices. African Americans have been pretty consistent in that way.

[Spirit of 34]

33. Black America has been good about not voting for people who are openly hostile

towards them, and yes, the alternatives to such candidates tend to be the better ones. But I think that says more about racism and white privilege in our society than some sort of innate political savvy by Black Americans.

Most Black Americans liked Bill because, unlike many other candidates, he took the time to listen, reach out to, and empathize with them. That says something about Bill Clinton's personal relationship with Black people, but it doesn't necessarily say anything about his policies being the best for Black Americans, and it certainly has no reflection on Hillary's policies. A lot of Mr. Clinton's policies were quite destructive to poor and working-class people of all races.

Most people will vote for the candidate they see as being most sympathetic towards them, that doesn't mean they are objectively the right choice, whether judging by their self-interest or the general interest.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. Re: "Black" and "African American"

I for one don't scrupulously avoid the term "Black". I used it at least twice in the OP, the first time in the second sentance, and I used it in other posts on this thread before I read your aside. I also remember when "People of Color" was more in vogue, and at different recent times all of those terms have been used by Blacks in America, and actually all still are. It is hard to avoid being accused of being too politically correct or not politically correct enough when some people make a big deal out of one phrase, others make a big deal out of another phrase, and others don't give a hoot as long as you don't use "colored" (unless you are spelling out the name of the N.A.A.C.P.)

[Spirit of 34]

34. Okay

Point taken.

[H2O Man]

19. Interesting.

"Almost no credit" from whom? For the fact that Senator Clinton has significant support in black communities indicates she gets plenty of credit, doesn't it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. I Think The OP Means Here

DSB

[H2O Man]

26. That black DUers

don't support Senator Clinton?

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. No, not that

I mean that the overwhelmingly white netroots community gives little thought to what the extent of Bill and/or Hillary Clinton's Black support might and/or should imply.

[H2O Man]

35. Valid topic.

One of the things that I thought was important during the Clinton administration, when some republicans were terribly upset by the business that lead to the bullshit impeachment, was that large sections of the black community displayed a type of compassion too often missing from politics today. Leaders are human beings, and human beings are imperfect. It wasn't that they were saying that affairs are A-okay, and lying was cool. But they rtecognized that Clinton was human, with very real strengths and weaknesses.

I think that type of compassion is what makes the democratic party better for America than the republican party. I think it is a common characteristic among our candidates, and certainly with Senator Clinton. I think that translates into a lot of the loyalty that I see in the Clinton camp, which is one of the things I admire.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. The spirit of this post captures the spirit of your content well

It too often gets lost in political debates. Thanks.

[Madam Mossfern]

30. Here's different perspective.

Hillary voted to invade Iraq. This article describes how African Americans in particular are against that. I think that this may eventually effect the number of African American votes that she gets.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/10/07/military_sees_big_decline_in_black_enlistees/

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. Yeah- But They Don't Seem To Hold Her IWR Vote Against Her

They , in my view, correctly assign the blame to the idiot who actually pulled the trigger...

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. ...instead of one of those who handed him the gun. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. May

May I infer from your statement that you would never, even at the barrel of a gun, support Joe Lieberman's co-sponsor of the Iraq War Resolution for president?

[RaleighNCDUer]

57. That candidate early and often said that he made a mistake.

And he followed that up by saying he would never make such a mistake again.

Hillary has never totally disowned her IWR vote, and compounded it by making the same mistake again with Iran. Refusing to learn from her mistakes makes her unacceptable.

EDIT: And don't get me wrong. I would vote for Hillary - if someone pointed a gun at me. But only...

[Armstead]

37. I'm the ultimate WASP, but here's my theory

Coming between Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 -- Bill Clinton was a breath of fresh air in terms of his stances on racial equality and opportunity.

And I think Bill and Hillary are both basically liberals at heart in terms of racial issues.

So it is not surprising that Hillary gets the residual effect of that.

However, in a broader sense, I believe the Clintons have been damaging to all races in terms of economic issues, the nexus of corporate and state power and heedless militarism.

That, to me, far outweighs their "liberal" stance on one issue, because it is antithetical to the interests of African Americans and everyone else outside of the narrow spectrum of the corporate elite.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. African American Unemployment Was At Its Lowest Level In History Under Clinton

I think they remember that...

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. "Mend it not end it" regarding Affirmative Action, in the face of a strong white backlash

That too I suspect.

[ellacott]

47. There is no guarantee it will be that way under HRC

That was a different time. The was before the tech bubble burst and before NAFTA and CAFTA were as big as they are now. The jobs that have been lost will probably not come back.

[cuke]

63. You are babbling now

All of the dem candidates (except Kucinich) have the same exact position on NAFTA as Clinton and Clinton voted AGAINST CAFTA.

Also, jobs aren't going to Mexico now. Theyre going to China, India and other lower cost nations.

You didn't say one thing that wasnt either flat out wrong or irrelevant

[Armstead]

50. Economic polarization was well underway in the 1990's

In terms of the surface, white unemployment was also down during the latter Clinton years.

However, it would be a mistake to confuse economic cycles with administrations. The economic bust of 2000 was already brewing while Clinton was president. He was foirtunate that it waited until 2001 to really hit home.

What's more important are the fundamentals. Clinton pursued a kinder and gentler version of the same neo-liberal economic policies as the Bushes and Reagan. This eroded the underlyoing base of the economy and left the entire lower half of the population vulnerable to downturns.

For an alternative I'd suggest this article. Yes, it's "socialist" but regardless of what one thinks of socialism, their analysis tends to be a lot more holistic about overall economic impacts than those of the Greenspan acolytes.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:YPjdeW9JMYEJ:www.socialistworker.org/2004-2/512/512_06_WorkingAmerica.shtml+black+unemployment,+reagan,+trends&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[ellacott]

54. Thanks for the link

It doesn't bother me that it's Socialist :)

Many people claim that the President doesn't influence job growth but sometimes they spin it to make their point.

Clinton was a welcome change, definately kinder and gentler. He has a large support among Blacks but people continue to dismiss those that have criticisms regarding his administration.

There are many blacks who do not vote so saying that HRC may get 51% of the Black vote doesn't meant that she has the majority of Black support. Just like the link you provided refers to "missing workers" I believe that the same can be said for "missing voters"

[Bitwit1234]

39. The African-Americans that she support give her credit

they know, they respond. That's the reason over half are supporting her instead of Obama. Not that they don't like Obama and would like an African American president. But they know the odds are 1,000 to 1 that he would even get the nomination, much less be elected and are sticking with a person, who SUPPORTS THEM and will WORK FOR THEM who has the ability and the resources to do so.

[Captain Hilts]

40. She got the non-Diana Supremes vote! It's a Happening! nt

[ellisonz]

44. This post makes me sick of the resuscitation of the word "progressive."

LIBERAL - just say it!

And Clenis...

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. LIBERAL! LIBERAL!! LIBERAL!!!

That felt good, Thanks. Can a progressive give credit to a Liberal, or vice versa, or is all that just talking to a mirror?

I agree that too often too many run away from "Liberal" by trotting out "Progressive" instead.

But of course Phil Ochs was a trouble maker for Liberals before Rush ever got his hands on that word.

[Spirit of 34]

49. But not all progressives are Liberals

Progressive is a broader term

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. That's an interesting observation

but probably it deserves a thread of it's own. I agree that the two terms are not identical although often one is used when the other is meant. If not all progressives are Liberals does it hold that all Liberals are progressive? Is one really a broader term than the other or do they more sort of overlap?

[Armstead]

52. The terms have become muddled these days

"Centrists" such as Hillary, who are very unprogressive in the traditional sense, claim the name "progressive" today, as do suppoorters of Dennis Kucinich. Both use the terms in very different ways.

In classical terms, meanwhile, the word liberal actually is closer to conservative or libertarian. But in the latter half of the 20th Century, liberalism tended to move closer to Dennis K style progressivism.

But in the 1960's liberals were, as you noted, the bogeymen of the "New Left" who believed they were too conservative.

The Clinton's are closer to what is now called neo-liberalism, which is closer to a corporate brand of conservative policies, while Dennis the K is closer to the idea of liberalism epitomized by FDR.

It all gets very confuzzin'

[Spirit of 34]

53. I agree with all of this

but "progressive" in contemporary American political discourse is just short-hand for "left of the GOP". And "Big L" Liberals (in this country) are one stripe of progressive.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. I Call Myself

a garden variety liberal, a traditional liberal, a welfare state liberal, a left leaner... I don't like the term progressive...

[Armstead]

58. I tend to try to have it both ways

I call myself a progressive liberal.

It's kind of a cop-out. I actually think of myself as believing the model of a "liberal" as represented by Paul Wellstone. That used to be mainstream liberalism, but today it has been branded as too far left.

[ellisonz]

56. The way progressive is used today in discourse most often is as a substitute term.

liberal/progressive creds, badge of progressive honor, progressives, Progressives, other progressive constituencies, progressive.

The closest historical reference point for this usage is probably: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_%28United_States%2C_1948%29

[sybil]

59. Is it any more odd?

Is it any more odd, Hillary "not getting credit" for her African American support, than the fact that you rarely see liberal progressive grassroots discussing their 'fears' that "the country just really isn't ready for an African American president"? ...and yet they do seem perfectly uninhibited about expressing these 'fears' in private as a basis for not voting for a candidate of color...why? b'cuz he just can't win'.

y'know? when you consider the fact that African American men gained suffrage several decades before those suffragette-grandmothers of ours who had actively been seeking and fighting for their own equality (and theirs)...? go figure

...maybe we're not as "evolved" as we believe ourselves to be?

Maybe we're not ready for a woman in the whitehouse either, truth be told. Maybe we're only "ready" for more Bill in the oval office?

oyea...you've certainly come a long way baby

[AtomicKitten]

60. I think much of it is being married to America's First Honorary Black President.

I am hopeful America will chose what will be America's actual first black president.

[ellacott]

61. Great point n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

62. Fine as far as that goes

Maybe Obama will be the first actual Black President, I would cheer if that happened, and maybe Obama will end up with greater Black support in the primaries than Hillary (that part seems uncertain at the moment) on the way to the White House. But the point still is why is Bill Clinton still held in that high regard, and why do both he and Hillary still have strong and often enthusiastic support inside the Black Community, which tends to be one of the most if not the most liberal voting block in the country, one with a very clear vested interest in liberal answers to the social and economic problems facing America? It is not a reaction one would now expect from that constituency, especially with a black man actually in the race, if the Black community equated Hillary Clinton with Bush lite to the degree that many white progressives seem to. Economically the case is almost always made that Blacks suffer earlier and more deeply than Whites do as a racial group when the interests of working people are not adaquately protected.

Again, I think it runs the risk of arrogance to suggest that white progressives know what is in the best interests of Black voters more than Black voters do themselves. Why such a noticable white/black divide then in how Hillary Clinton is now regarded? She may end up not winnig the lion's share of the African American vote this year, but she is obviously overall quite popular in the black community, eight years after Bill Clinton left office. There seems to be differing perceptions across racial lines in America about what the actual impact of a Hillary Clinton Presidency would be.

The truth may lie somewhere in the middle, but this suggests to me that there is a case for Hillary Clinton that the Black community is receptive to which many white progressives tend not to allot equal weight to.