Commenting on Sen. Hillary Clinton's Dr. Martin Luther King Day speech

I realize I may be a bit behind, as life beyond the blog has been hectic, but I can not let the words of Sen. Hillary Clinton pass without comment. Sen. Clinton on Jan. 17th, Dr. Martin Luther King Day, made the comment, “when you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about.” The senator went on to say, “It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard.”
Those that have defended Sen. Clinton’s remarks include Rev. Al Sharpton [see my comments on Rev. Sharpton], Sen. Barack Obama and New York Rep. Gregory Meeks. Sen. Obama has stated he believed the remarks were expressing, “the ordinary voter and even members of Congress who aren't in the majority party don't have much input.” Rep. Meeks for his part stated, “There was no race card played here. If any card was played here it was a joker, because that's who seems to be running the House right now if you look at the leadership.”

Do these individuals, Sen. Clinton in particular, believe that the citizens of America are that stupid? I say this because to deny the racial implications, that seem obvious to me, would be the same as assuming I am to stupid to understand the meaning of what was said. Not only were these words chosen for their impact long before the actual event (unless Sen. Hillary Clinton is the only politician not using speech writers), the date and audience were critical factors.

But let me start with the comparison to slavery. First I must say that I am both tired and appalled by the constant comparison, by every group you can imagine and many you don’t, to slavery. While the Holocaust that occurred during WWII was savage, killing an estimated 8 million of 13 million Jews in the world at the time, it is not unique. There is no denial though that this is a fair comparison. Much like the way that many use comparisons to the Holocaust, Hitler, and Nazi regimes in an attempt to bolster their claims American Slavery is also used. The Native American Indians also have suffered horribly. I believe that at this time not one pure-blooded Native American Indian exists in the world, though I may be wrong. If I am correct, or even nearly correct in that thought, then that is an act of genocide. Comparisons of this are also fair to American Slavery. The fact is that of the millions of slaves brought forcibly to this nation, or born in this nation under slavery (there is no estimate I am aware of as “property” does not require records of any type) died. The deaths can be attributed to ill-treatment, unsafe (to say the least) living conditions, malnourishment, lack of medical facilities and treatment, murder and as acts of sport. I strongly believe that not one Black African American that can trace their lineage to slavery, has a pure blood-line. That can be attributed predominantly to rape, and abuse both physical and mental. Any group that cannot claim centuries of the above descriptions should never open their mouths to make a comparison to slavery again.

Thus when a comparison of a part of Congress is made to American Slavery, I am insulted. I would normally call someone making a shallow, useless, and self-motivated comparison of this nature a fool, but in this instance I think it is worse. Since Congress, and any of its parts, are not being raped, killed, nor denied any rights the comparison is useless and false. Since no one in this country is considered property of anyone else [excluding active military who give up their rights under the Constitution for the period of time they serve in the armed forces] the statement fails there as well. The Congress has, theoretically, 1/3 of the power of the nation as described in the Constitution and the Amendments. If the Senate feels, as Sen. Clinton implies I think, that it is without power it is so only because they allow it to be. The Congress passes legislation, not the President. If the President’s administration has support of the Congress, which is in place to represent the best interests of the citizens they represent, then that is just leadership not slavery. In addition the further comments stating that, “...nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation...” sounds more like a disgruntled individual that has not been able to get what they want, not slavery. If the President has support on issues she is counter to, that is not unfair or un-American; it’s politics and no different than what any President tries to, and some have, achieve in their administration. As a white, relatively rich, powerful, and somewhat in my opinion elitist woman, the comparison Senator Hillary Clinton makes leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Especially since an apology and/or reparations cannot pass in the Congress in which she is a part. The fact is she has never even mentioned either of those options, ever, but finds it appropriate to use American Slavery as a tool for her own ends. That is an abuse on the abuse done in the past. I don’t hold anyone responsible for the actions of the nation centuries ago [I do hold the Government responsible as discussed in a previous post] but I do hold them accountable for their actions today.

As to those who deny or divert attention from the fact this was a racially motivated statement, and in poorest of taste in my opinion. I will not discuss Rev. Sharpton as I have commented on him enough previously and my position is clear I believe. Sen. Obama is another matter. I respect the dedication he has had, and self-discipline, in achieving the things he has. I do not doubt his convictions nor his intent to better the lives of his constituents. I do find fault with his attempt to clean up the obvious racial and misrepresented statement by Sen. Clinton. His claims that the comments by Sen. Clinton were not racial are in contrast to her “and you know what I'm talking about” inclusion in the statement. The fact that she chose Dr. Martin Luther King Day, and a black audience also adds to the credibility that it was her intention to be racial. Would she have said the same comments (of which it should be noted are not common for her nor expected from past speeches) on the Fourth of July? To a group of white Americans in the south? Or Montana? We may never know, but if she did I don’t think the response would be nearly as soft. To the credit of Sen. Obama he backs away as best he can, from the remarks of Sen. Clinton and instead attacks the support of the President. Politically and as a member of the Senate, I can abide that as he does so with the best interest of the citizens he represents. That is American politics.

Rep. Meeks on the other hand, seems to be oblivious to the obvious. To emphatically say there was no issue of race in the comments by Sen. Clinton, would cause me to wonder if he is obtuse. To continue with his statement and insult and disrespect colleagues is absurd. I cannot see how more personal attacks (calling someone a ‘joker’ is not professional nor endearing in any profession or business I have known or been involved with) will cause members of the opposition party, or even members of his own party with more respect for their colleagues, to suddenly enjoin his proposals. I do not see how his statement will cause the citizens of various communities to rally support to the causes he and his party represent; as his statement was lacking in credibility, substance or merit as I understood it.

I have made many comments in reference to Sen. Clinton. It is not because I personally find her to be power-hungry, or that she appears to be manipulative in my mind. It is not because of her attempts to grab attention with half-thought comments or actions, as I perceive them to be. I am focusing attention on Sen. Hillary Clinton because she is up for re-election in 2006, and I do not feel she has beneficed New York State. I pay attention and become upset with her actions because many portray her as the front-runner of the Democratic Party’s nominee for President in 2008. I expect better of a nominee, and candidate. I expect far more for an elected official. Sen. Clinton may have more raw brainpower than our sitting President, but it is coupled with an even greater desire for power as I perceive it. For all the faults President Bush may and does have, I think few doubt that his ultimate intentions are for the betterment of this nation and its citizens. Debate over whether or not his actions will improve the country are par for the course of any sitting President, and will not be known empirically for perhaps a decade. But to sit back and allow someone who I find deeply flawed and maintaining an agenda whose ultimate benefit is herself, is emphatically wrong.

I will end this here for now, but I’m sure I will come back to this again in the future.

This is what I think, what do you think?