by Gwen Richardson
During the 2008 presidential campaign, political commentators have repeatedly referenced the supposed long-time love affair between Bill and Hillary Clinton and the African-American community. While it is probably true that the majority of African Americans are fond of the Clintons, there is a significant bloc for whom there is no love lost.
Many of us were first introduced to Bill Clinton during the 1992 presidential campaign when he addressed Rev. Jesse Jackson’s organization, the Rainbow Coalition, in Chicago. Clinton clearly had no qualms about playing the race card to advance his political aspirations. The Arkansas governor criticized Jackson for a racially-charged remark made by rapper Sista Souljah, although the Reverend had absolutely nothing to do with it. Shortly thereafter, Clinton traveled back to Arkansas to approve the execution of a retarded Black man, Rickey Ray Rector, for a murder that he was barely aware that he committed, as a public demonstration that the would-be president was tough on crime.
After Clinton became president, his loyalty to his friends, or lack thereof, was vividly on display in 1993 during the nomination of Lani Guinier, then a University of Pennsylvania law professor and the Clintons’ long-time friend, to head the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. After pressure from Republicans regarding some of Guinier’s writings, Clinton caved in without a fight, publicly humiliated Guinier and withdrew her nomination.
But what is most troublesome about the Clintons is their penchant for parsing words, their seeming inability to tell the truth, and their pattern of blaming their opponents when they make mistakes, refusing to accept responsibility. That is essentially what has occurred with the recent uproar regarding Hillary Clinton’s statements about Dr. Martin Luther King and President Lyndon Johnson.
Hillary made this statement herself, without prompting, indicating that while Martin Luther King marched and made speeches regarding civil rights, it took President Lyndon Johnson to enact the legislation to get it done. Although her supporters have tried to spin it differently, her statement implied two things: One, the sacrifices that King and many thousands of others made from 1955 to 1965, starting with the Montgomery bus boycotts and continuing through sit-ins, marches and freedom rides, is the moral equivalent of Lyndon Johnson signing legislation which would not have been brought to the fore without the 10 preceding years of aggressive action. Second, she asserted that presumably she, as president, would have this same power of the pen. But wouldn’t Obama also have the same authority if he is elected President? Her remark immediately raised some eyebrows as to her intentions and motives. Exactly what message was she trying to convey?
Hillary realized her faux pas only after the uproar bubbled up from African Americans at the grass roots level, through talk radio and elected officials like South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn. But rather than admit she perhaps selected a poor choice of words and clarify her statement, she instead chose to blame it on Obama, who had nothing whatsoever to do with her making the statement, nor the public reaction to it. In fact, Obama has been very careful not to inject racial overtones into his campaign, knowing that would not serve him well throughout the primaries or the general election. After all, he is the candidate whose campaign theme has been national unity and bipartisan cooperation.
The widely reported remarks about Obama made Sunday night by a Clinton surrogate, BET founder Bob Johnson, were particularly toxic and below the belt. But did the Clintons object or apologize? No. Instead, they again chose to parse words, releasing a statement that denied what was obvious about Johnson’s rant to anyone who is honest. Only after being pressed repeatedly by media did Hillary admit Johnson’s remarks were inappropriate.
Further, as has been noted by several political observers, there is a generational component to the Black support for Clinton and Obama. Much of Clinton’s support comes from African Americans who came of age in the 1960s and before, and there is a sense that some of these voters are more comfortable supporting, rather than challenging, the establishment candidate. Younger African Americans, on the other hand, are not as bound by tradition and see a break with the past as the best political solution for the future. They prefer to seize the opportunity for the presidency now, rather than wait for a mythical moment when “we shall overcome.”
Even for some older African Americans, like retired Harlem resident Jean Campbell, support for Hillary has largely been a function of anti-Republican sentiment. “At first,” says Campbell, “I thought I would have to hold my nose and vote for Hillary. Because Obama is in the race, now I don’t have to.”
Should Hillary get the Democratic nomination, the Clintons will have some fence mending to do. With Hillary’s high negatives and 50 percent of the country saying they wouldn’t vote for her, she will need an enthusiastic Black vote if she has any hope of winning the presidency. Her most recent actions don’t bode well for a November victory.
————–
Gwen Richardson is a Houston-based entrepreneur and author of the new book, Why African Americans Can’t Get Ahead: And How We Can Solve It With Group Economics. She graduated from Bill Clinton’s alma mater, Georgetown University.
