Friday, December 14, 2007

Is Hillary Clinton trying to 'Willie Horton' Barack Obama?

In case you haven't been paying attention to politics in the past few days, the former head of Hillary Clinton's campaign in New Hampshire, Bill Shaheen, 'resigned' because of remarks that he made about Barack Obama.

Per the WashingtonPost, here is the money quote:
Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would "open the door" to further questions. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."




Now, numerous previous candidates have admitted to drug use. George W. Bush spent the better part of TWENTY YEARS under some sort of influence, be it booze or drugs, and nobody EVER ASKED HIM THIS QUESTION.

But, THE BLACK MAN, who has TWO Ivy League Degrees, is ASKED IF HE'S A DRUG DEALER?

But, if Sheehan was 'acting solo'/ 'going rogue', then what the hell was Mark Penn doing on Hardball with the same slime, not an hour AFTER the debate was over.

Thanks to our friend, sagereader, over at Think On These Things, breaks it down in this post: Evidence That Clinton Camp’s Attack On Obama’s Drug Use Was Deliberate

The title of this post comes from a reply at Jack and Jill.

NMP asked:
The larger question for the hankerchief heads, as you like to call them, supporting Hillary Clinton is will they join her in effectively using a Wille Horton on Obama...using the unjust incarceration of mostly Black men as a wedge issue to scare White folks against Obama?


I have written about Hillary Clinton's stance AGAINST retroactivity with regards to drug sentencing HERE.

Here is the money quote from Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic:

Campaign aides have said that Obama's support for retroactivity in drug sentences would kill him with tough-on-crime white independents. But the Supreme Court, in a 7 to 2 decision yesterday that included Antonin Scalia, endorsed the view that judges could ignore sentencing guidelines when handing down prison terms for distributing crack versus powder cocaine, and a Bush administration panel today voted seven to nothing to impose retroactivity.


Now, her choice puts her to the RIGHT of SCALIA. It's going to be on the backs of Black Men and Women - who are the ones disproportionately incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses. She'll prove her ELECTABILITY by proving how many BLACK FOLK she can keep locked up.

First scaring the White folk in Iowa with the Obama is a Drug Dealer smear, then once she's won that, have her Handkerchief Heads, come front and center, about why Black folk should vote for her, after she's vowed to keep standing, one of the most obvious and blatant examples of Racial Disparity in the Justice System.

We must suffer through this racist BS when it comes from a Republican.

But, I’ll be damned if I’m going to suffer through it from a Democrat.

I.am.NEVER.voting.for.her.



PS- And, don't forget, that not one, but TWO folks have had to resign in Iowa because of the Madrassa LIE.


Cross-posted at Brown Iowa

5 comments:

Shark-fu said...

Get out of my head!

Wink.

Fantabulous post...

Beyond-What-We-See said...

Nice post,very informative. This has been since "la nuit de temps" the trick. White people are always nice and respectful of rules until the Black folk starts to shine, then the masks come down.
However competitvity comes at a price, so no fear ...

Beyond-What-We-See said...

... because the time of framing is over. Democracy, even imperfect, is gaining day after day. No need to deny that America is getting better in accepting differences.

nobody-cares-about-you said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Angry Independent said...

I knew that when it got down to crunch time that Obama would have to deal with these kinds of attacks.

Never fails.

And he's getting it from all sides too.