RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Boardman writes: "After listening awhile, Hillary Clinton pettishly told a quintet of respectful Black Lives Matter activists that, 'Yeah, well, respectfully, if that is your position, then I will talk only to white people about how we are going to deal with a very real problem.' More than being nonsensical, she was actually trying to avoid the reality that white violence against black people is an offense that only white people can stop."

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. (photo: Charlie Neibergall/AP)
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. (photo: Charlie Neibergall/AP)


Hillary Clinton: 'I Will Talk Only to White People ...'

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

25 August 15

 

Black Lives Matter activists push edges that need pushing

fter listening awhile, Hillary Clinton pettishly told a quintet of respectful Black Lives Matter activists that, “Yeah, well, respectfully, if that is your position, then I will talk only to white people about how we are going to deal with a very real problem.” More than being nonsensical, she was actually trying to avoid the reality that white violence against black people is an offense that only white people can stop. And she was also avoiding her own, very real role in promoting federal policies that have made black lives matter less and less over the past two decades. 

Hillary Clinton’s meeting with Daunasia Yancey, Julius Jones, and others of Black Lives Matter began well enough on August 11 in Keene, New Hampshire, after an early glitch. The Secret Service kept the activists out of the room where Clinton was speaking because the room was full (they heard her speak with others in an overflow room). But then the Clinton campaign arranged the after-event meeting at which cordiality and calm were the rule. 

This was in sharp contrast to the Social Security rally in Seattle on August 9, where Bernie Sanders was interrupted by other Black Lives Matter activists. There, two women took over the podium as the candidate began to speak. They waved their arms and shouted, silencing Sanders. Bernie held out his hand to shake one of theirs. Then came the tip-off: no one took his hand. As Sanders gave way, these Black Lives Matter women took over the event and shut it down. On their website they had posted a comment echoing Malcolm X in 1964, who had echoed Jean-Paul Sartre:

There is no business as usual while Black lives are lost.

We will ensure this by any means necessary

After the event, Sanders issued a statement expressing his disappointment “that two people disrupted a rally attended by thousands” in support of Social Security. He added that “on criminal justice reform and the need to fight racism, there is no other candidate who will fight harder than me.” The next day, Sanders published his detailed racial justice platform. 

The question for Hillary Clinton: Have you changed? 

The echo of revolutionary rhetoric was absent from the 16-minute exchange with Hillary Clinton in Keene (the full videotape was released August 19). Both Yancey and Jones spoke quietly and coherently, but they were substantively much more militant than the sloganeers of Seattle. After a friendly-looking handshake and some shoulder-touching from the candidate, Daunasia Yancey of Black Lives Matter in Boston read from her iPhone as she asked about the difference, if any, between the Hillary Clinton of twenty years ago and the Hillary now:

… you and your family have been personally and politically responsible for policies that have caused health and human services disasters in impoverished communities of color through the domestic and international war on drugs that you championed as First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State. And so I just want to know how you feel about your role in that violence and how you plan to reverse it?

For the next fifteen minutes, Clinton ignored the question and refused to offer any plan to ameliorate the suffering caused by US drug policy, or any other policy. Her body language was stiff, leaning back, “listening hard” but appearing unreceptive. Everything she had to say was contained in her empty and opaque first sentence in irrelevant response:

Well, you know, I feel strongly, which is why I had this town hall today.

Clinton never came close to addressing her own actions. She filibustered, in effect, for a minute or so about “concern” and “re-thinking” and “different circumstances” and “looking at the world as it is today,” without actually saying anything specific or meaningful. She was talking down to her listener, almost lecturing, without content. Hillary Clinton seemed to be suggesting that the policy she and her husband supported in the 1990s was good then, but maybe, just maybe, it needed to be re-thought in some ways now. 

Yancey replied politely, with Clinton interrupting: “Yeah, and I would offer that it didn’t work then, either, and that those policies were actually extensions of white supremacist violence against communities of color. And so, I just think I want to hear a little bit about that, about the fact that actually while … those policies were being enacted, they were ripping apart families … and actually causing death. 

“Yeah, I’m not sure I agree with you,” Clinton replied. She’s not sure? She’s had twenty years to think about race in America and she’s not sure whether she helped or hurt? She running for president and she’s not sure what she thinks is real? Next she said, “I’m not sure I disagree that any kind of government action often has consequences,” which means nothing and is unresponsive. That was Clinton’s choice, to be unresponsive, rather than admit she’d been wrong twenty years ago, when “there was a very serious crime wave that was impacting primarily communities of color and poor people.”

Hillary argues: all we’ve ever done is try to help you people

From there, Clinton slid into a meandering but empty defense of Clinton administration actions as a response to real community concerns. Doing so, she evaded the reality that the Clinton response was a top-down answer, that community involvement in solving its own problems was something to be tolerated as little as possible. She continued in the same vein in addressing the present, mentioning “systemic issues of race and justice that go deeper than any particular law” without particularity. Clinton seemed at a loss for anything to say until she seemed to stumble on the old pat-on-the-head, patronizing flattery for the critic who objects to cops killing black people:

What you’re doing, as activists and as people who are constantly raising these issues, is really important. So I applaud and thank you for that, I really do, because we can’t get change unless there’s constant pressure. But now the next step, so, you know – part of you need to keep the pressure on and part of you need to help figure out what do we do now, how are we gonna do it? [emphasis in original] 

Slick moves. Praise the victims for objecting to their victimhood. Compliment them on their efforts to end victimization. Tell them it’s up to them to bring authority to heel, and to heal. And put the responsibility on the victims to figure out what the victimizers should do differently. And be extra careful not to come close to even implying that the president or the cops or anyone in between has any personal or institutional responsibility for victimizing people in the first place. Good job, Hillary Clinton. 

Six minutes into the empty rhetoric, Clinton has answered no questions and offered no solutions, but bloviated “sympathetically” to get to this:

We need a whole comprehensive plan that I am more than happy to work with you guys on, to try to figure out, OK, we know black lives matter, we need to keep saying it so that people accept it, what do we do next?

Julius Jones tried to get Hillary Clinton to address specifics

As Clinton began to ramble on along this track, Julius Jones, founder of Black Lives Matter in Worcester, Massachusetts, gently, almost tentatively intervened to say how honored he was to have Hillary Clinton talking to him, and such, but mass incarceration hasn’t worked, like so much else: 

The truth is that there’s an extremely long history of unfortunate government practices that don’t work, that particularly affect black people and black families. And until we, as a country, and then the person who’s in the seat that you seek, actually addresses the anti-blackness current that is America’s first drug – we’re in a meeting about drugs, right?

America’s first drug is free black labor and turning black bodies into profit, and the mass incarceration system mirrors an awful lot like the prison plantation system. It’s a similar thread, right? And until someone takes that message and speaks that truth to white people in this country, so that we can actually take on anti-blackness as a founding problem in this country, I don’t believe that there is going to be a solution....

Jones pointed out that there’s a lot of money in prisons, that the US spends more money on prisons than it spends on schools. Throughout, Clinton was keeping a sober face and going “Mmmm” as if agreeing to his points. She seemed to agree when he said that African-American people were suffering more than others. And Jones expressed the fear that the plantation evolving into the prison system would evolve into new horrors unless something changed. So he returned to Yancey’s original question in a different form:

You know, I genuinely want to know – you and your family have been, in no uncertain way, partially responsible for this, more than most, right? Now, there may have been unintended consequences. But now that you understand the consequences, what in your heart has changed that’s going to change the direction in this country? Like, what in you – like, not your platform, not what you’re supposed to say – like,how do you actually feel that’s different than you did before? Like, what were the mistakes? And how can those mistakes that you made be lessons for all of America for a moment of reflection on how we treat black people in this country? [emphasis added]

How does Hillary Clinton “actually feel that’s different” from before?

This is a potentially devastating moment for candidate Clinton. Without missing a beat, a staff member interrupts, breaks the flow, and says something about keeping on schedule. Jones objected to the interruption and the staffer even said, “I’m not interrupting,” but he’d given the candidate another 20 seconds to frame her answer: “Well, obviously it’s a very thoughtful question that deserves a thoughtful answer.”

Then Clinton vamped on her “commitment” to make things better, going into a long riff on how she had spent much of her life trying to make things better for kids, all kinds of kids. She agreed that “there has to be a reckoning,” but also a “positive vision.” Once you face the truth of racial history, she said, then most people will say: so what am I supposed to do about it?  

That’s what I’m trying to put together in a way that I can explain it and I can sell it ­– because in politics, you can’t explain it and you can’t sell it, it stays on the shelf.

Clinton then referred to other movements – civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights – and started a mini-lecture on how these movements had plans in place so that, once they had raised consciousness, they could get laws passed. Her spiel was self-servingly ahistorical, comparing the year-old Black Lives Matter to other movements that took decades to evolve. Her point was that Black Lives Matter needed a plan, which is undeniable. The point she didn’t make clear was that she had nothing to contribute. She covered that absence by saying: 

Your analysis is totally fair. It’s historically fair. It’s psychologically fair. It’s economically fair. But you’re going to have to come together as a movement and say, “Here’s what we want done about it,” because you can get lip service from as many white people as you can pack into Yankee Stadium and a million more like it, who are going to say, “Oh, we get it. We get it. We’re going to be nicer.” OK? That’s not enough, at least in my book. That’s not how I see politics.

So, the consciousness raising, the advocacy, the passion, the youth of your movement is so critical. But now all I’m suggesting is, even for us sinners, find some common ground on agendas that can make a difference right here and now in people’s lives. And that’s what I would love to, you know, have your thoughts about, because that’s what I’m trying to figure out how to do….” [emphasis added]

If the “analysis is totally fair,” why is Clinton’s response so pallid?

Clinton spent another minute or so making the same point in another way, once again absolving herself of commitment to any particular goal, or strategy, and once more laying it on the victims to deal with their victimization by the white culture she represents and helped shape in its present form. They had been talking about 14 minutes by then and Hillary Clinton had answered no questions and had offered nothing. A staffer interrupted, saying it was time to go. 

But Julius Jones quietly refused to accept the patronizing pat on the head with the implied promise of a bone to be tossed at some indefinite time in the future. With quiet patience he opened up the only meaningful dialogue of the encounter, as reported on Democracy NOW!:

JULIUS JONES: Respectfully, the piece that’s most important – and I stand here in your space, and I say this as respectfully as I can – but if you don’t tell black people what we need to do, then we won’t tell you all what you need to do. Right?

HILLARY CLINTON: I’m not telling you; I’m just telling you to tell me.

JULIUS JONES: What I mean to say is that this is, and has always been, a white problem of violence. It’s not– there’s not much that we can do to stop the violence against us. [emphasis added throughout]

That is the moment of truth. Blacks are almost powerless to stop white people from killing them. Blacks have always been almost powerless to stop white people from killing them. White people need to decide that killing black people is wrong and will no longer be allowed by the white power structure. Clinton must know this, it’s so obvious. She said, “I understand what you’re saying,” but she gave no evidence that she understands. And when Jones tried to pursue his argument, she cut him off, her voice rising peevishly, sarcastically echoing “respectfully” with no respect:

JULIUS JONES: And then, we are also, respectfully, respectfully—

HILLARY CLINTON: Yeah, well, respectfully, if that is your position, then I will talk only to white people about how we are going to deal with a very real problem.

JULIUS JONES: That’s not what I mean. That’s not what I mean. That’s not what I mean.

HILLARY CLINTON: Well—

JULIUS JONES: But like, what I’m saying is you –what you just said was a form of victim blaming.Right? You were saying that what the Black Lives Matter movement … needs to do to change white hearts is to come up with a policy change.

HILLARY CLINTON: No, I’m not talking about—look, I don’t believe you change hearts. I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate. You’re not going to change every heart…. 

In the end, Clinton promised nothing – so you know what to expect

Clinton creates a straw man argument – Jones didn’t say “change every heart.” Then she uses that falsehood to say again what she’s been saying all along, to say what Jones said she said. Once again Clinton puts the responsibility for creating change on the people with the least power to create change. This is nothing but bad faith. (Even Bill Clinton has apologized, at the N.A.A.C.P. convention, for increasing the mass incarceration of black young men: “I signed a bill that made the problem worse.”) 

Ironically, Hillary Clinton’s nasty suggestion that “I will talk only to white people” actually implies a more relevant tactic. She has no intention of doing anything like that, it seems. But it would be a start for Hillary Clinton to talk to her 1990s self and say, out loud, that mass incarceration for profit was a morally and economically corrupt idea and today I reject it. Then today’s Hillary Clinton might have more credibility when she expressed sympathy for people oppressed in part by her own past policies. (A sometimes hilarious pro-Hillary version of this event by Maggie Haberman appeared on page one of the August 20 New York Times.)

What happened in Keene was that she concluded with her voice reaching an almost angry intensity, with her finger pointing at the black man’s chest, and with her message reiterated that, if America fails to change, it’s the victims’ fault. 

So maybe she really is talking only to white people. Hillary Clinton has been in public life for decades. How can she possibly be so unaware of racial reality as she presents herself. How can she possibly know at least some of the things that need to be done to improve Black lives and all lives? Her message – or really, her lack of message – is certainly what a whole lot of white people want to hear. 

In that respect, she’s little different from Scott Walker, who responded to a reporter asking him if he would meet with Black Lives Matter by calling the question “ridiculous.” Walker added: “I’m here to talk to voters in New Hampshire about things that matter.”

Does Black Lives Matter matter enough to enough people?

For Scott Walker, suggesting that Black Lives Matter is something that doesn’t matter is designed to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Or one could say that Walker continues the grand old tradition of marginalizing the marginalized. And no wonder, since Black Lives Matter is a conscious, conscientious threat to Walker and all his ilk. Black Lives Matter describes itself as: 

… an ideological and political intervention; we are not controlled by the same political machine we are attempting to hold accountable. In the year leading up to the elections, we are committed to holding all candidates for Office accountable to the needs and dreams of Black people. We embrace a diversity of tactics. We are a decentralized network aiming to build the leadership and power of black people….

Historically, all political parties have participated in the systematic disenfranchisement of Black people. Anti-black racism, especially that sanctioned by the state, has resulted in the loss of healthy and thriving Black life and well-being. Given that, we will continue to hold politicians and political parties accountable for their policies and platforms. We will also continue to demand the intentional dismantling of structural racism.

So far, Hillary Clinton only pretends to be interested in thinking about that. She has better rhetoric and a more flexible and subtle approach to racial issues than Walker and his fellow Republicans. She seems to offer more sympathy to victims of the American system, but it’s hard to see how she’s offering a presidency that would deliver very much better results than any of theirs.

The official position of the Sanders campaign on racial justice (9 pages) is unequivocal in principle:

We must pursue policies that transform this country into a nation that affirms the value of its people of color. That starts with addressing the four central types of violence waged against black and brown Americans: physical, political, legal and economic….

It is an outrage that in these early years of the 21st century we are seeing intolerable acts of violence being perpetuated by police, and racist terrorism by white supremacists.

Hillary Clinton, face-to-face with Black Lives Matter people speaking truth to would-be power, offered nothing better than equivocation and victim blaming.



William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+47 # Radscal 2015-08-25 13:05
Thank you Mr. Boardman and RSN for the best analysis of Ms. Clinton's "meeting" with these BLM activists I've seen.

In addition to her "only talk to white people" threat (and it was a threat), she actually did answer Mr. Jones' question:

“what in your heart has changed that’s going to change the direction in this country? “

Ultimately, she said:
“look, I don’t believe you change hearts.”

Nothing has changed "in her (alleged) heart."

Importantly, she excused the Clinton Administration policies that have led to so much of the criminalization , mass incarceration and brutalizing and killing of black lives by saying:

“there was a very serious crime wave that was impacting primarily communities of color and poor people.”

That "crime wave" was what was called the "crack epidemic." For decades, we have known that was the result of CIA Iran/Contra drug and weapons running.

For decades there has been evidence that a certain Governor of a certain southern state at least looked the other way while a small airport in Mena Arkansas received hundreds of flights carrying hundreds of tons of the cocaine that fueled that "crime wave."

The Clinton responsibility for the situation she refuses to address runs very deep.
 
 
+6 # lorenbliss 2015-08-26 13:53
Though I'm again way late to the fair (as seems to be the norm these days), I emphatically agree with Radscal's "best analysis" judgment and will add another superlative as well.

Mr. Boardman's reporting is, by far, the best most accurately nuanced work of its kind I have yet seen in RSN. It achieves the rarely equaled informativeness that defined the late Jack Newfield's work in the real (pre-Murdoch) "Village Voice" and -- again like Newfield's keen-eyed reportage -- it looks beyond the (deliberately distracting) hurly-burly of USian politics and so reveals many troublesome truths that might otherwise have remained concealed.

Moreover, Mr. Boardman's work fills an emptiness so huge -- and so much a defining part of the media climate in today's United States -- many of us may not have hitherto been aware of what we lacked. But now after reading reports of such depth and diligence, surely we will hunger for more of the same.

Hence my most emphatic thanks to Mr. Boardman for this report and to Marc Ash and RSN for publishing his work.
 
 
+45 # Dongi 2015-08-25 16:51
Hillary is an empty suit in search of a few good ideas that she can organize her campaign around. I think in a debate with Sanders she would be very vulnerable to some probing questions about her past as first lady and as Secretary of State. I can't wait to see how this plays out.
 
 
+51 # Farafalla 2015-08-25 17:32
Sanders has infinitely higher morals than Hillary. Her cynicism is deep. You have to be cynic to be a foreign policy hawk and a Wall Street shill.
 
 
-20 # Rondre 2015-08-25 17:46
My paartner and I have been contributing money to RSN every month for a long time.Lately, however, we have become disgusted with the way some of your writers produce "news". This article on Hillary Clinton is not news; it is a manipulation of the facts and yet another example of "let's destroy Hillary Clinton". It is not objective, it takes sentences out of context, and worse, it then interprets her words to make her sound anti-black. If this writer thinks that Hillary Clinton is against black people he is absolutely delusional. Is he anti-women? From the beginning his headline, or yours, is meant to raise tempers against her. Of all her sentences this one was chosen as the headline to make her look insensitive if not stupid. She is neither. This entire article is devisive, and an all too transparent attempt at critisizing a human being who has spent a large part of her life trying to improve a sick country. I am embarassed by this kind of reportage. If you lived in Europe and knew what most people here think and feel about our country you would realize how ridiculous we seem especially in our form of political news. In 14 yers here I have yet to meet anyone who considers the USA a true democracy. In what other democracy can someone win an election with fewer votes than the opponent?Whethe r it is reader supported or not, one thing this article is not is NEWS. RSN fosters political propaganda. You would be wise to choose and objectively report real news.
 
 
+25 # jimallyn 2015-08-25 18:43
Quoting Rondre:
Of all her sentences this one was chosen as the headline to make her look insensitive if not stupid. She is neither.

Hillary Clinton's conversation with Black Lives Matter sounds insensitive to me, as does "We came, we saw, he died" in referring to Moammar Kadafi.
 
 
+7 # Tazio 2015-08-25 21:13
But using that line in the title of this opinion piece is intentionally misleading, and unfair. It is also anti-Hillary, which I believe Mr Boardman might be.

Also, black lives do indeed matter, but "Black Lives Matter", a corporation formed by Mr. Jones, represents only his particular point of view and does not speak for black America, in my opinion.

But I do enjoy their no-right-answer rhetorical questions and how flustered some white politicians get.
At least Clinton was brave enough to give them 15 long minutes.
Trump says he won't even talk with them.

(Oh, and I also thought "we came, we saw, he died" was very crude
and most unprofessional. )
 
 
+20 # Michon 2015-08-25 23:49
You say she was brave enough to "give" them 15 long minutes? Looks to me like she took up at least 10 of those 15 long minutes. What's worse, she didn't say a damn thing of substance....bu t then when has she ever say anything beyond sound bite bullshit?
 
 
0 # WBoardman 2015-08-29 14:04
Tazio is half-right about the headline, it was
"intentionally misleading," although I prefer to
think of it as deliberately provocative.

Tazio is wrong that the headline is unfair.
It would be unfair if unexplained.
That would make it also stupid.
But the headline was there as a hook for a long and
detailed explanation.

Tazio's comment about BLM as a corporation
– with nosourcing –
is contradicted by the BLM wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter

Tazio's "no-right-answe r rhetorical questions"
characterizatio n is simply false.
They asked her about her personal support for
mass incarceration of blacks, which continues
to damage black communities
and she would not answer,
when ANY answer would have been the right answer
(assuming it was an honest answer).

Maybe Hillary giving BLM 15 minutes was "brave,"
and maybe she perceived it as a political necessity.
 
 
+1 # Tazio 2015-09-03 11:17
Thank you for your reply Mr. Boardman.
Not to belabor the issue but I stand by the idea that the out-of-context Hillary quote was unfair because a certain number of readers will only read the headline, And Remember IT, and won't bother to go 8 fathoms into the article for its context.

I'm sorry I assumed BLM was a 501c3 corporation. I should have said 'organization' but my point was not what business form they employed but rather that they were just a small private group and not necessarily representative of anyone other than themselves.

I completely agree with their point of view but I thought their questions were so long and overwrought that they were almost impossible to answer. If they had just asked, "your husband's legislation has hurt poor, black people as even he has now admitted...how have your opinions on this changed?" it would have been easier to get a useful answer.

You are certainly correct that she must have perceived the interview as a political necessity, and considering the difficulties other candidates were widely reported to have had with this small group, including Sanders being run off his own stage, I think moderately brave, but isn't it interesting that her reactions are called peevish, petty and pallid while Trump, who said "I wouldn't even have allowed them on the stage", is seen as strong and tough.
 
 
0 # WBoardman 2016-03-03 09:22
I don't know anyone who sees Trump as "strong and tough,"
but I lead a sheltered life. ;-)))
 
 
+12 # Billsy 2015-08-26 11:35
I fully agree with you. I watched the entire exchange on "Democracy Now" and Clinton came across as patronizing and evasive. That "I will only talk to white people" comment struck me as downright testy and defensive. She basically left full responsibility with the Black Lives Matter movement as if to say she wouldn't do anything unless they kept constant pressure on her. Given this, her fealty to wall street (she's betrayed Sen. Warren on critical legislation) her demonization of Edward Snowden while she supports NSA overreach and her chicken-hawk support for disastrous regime change in the Ukraine, she's lost my vote in the primaries. I'm supporting the candidate whose record & policies are most in sync with progressives: Bernie Sanders.
 
 
+22 # Merlin 2015-08-25 19:18
Rondre 2015-08-25 17:46

You are confused if you believe this is exclusively a “news” reporting site. Many of the articles are Op-Ed pieces which are the writers opinion or his analysis of the given situation. That is what this article is. An op-ed. You can agree with it or not, that is your choice. However, your anger toward RSN is totally misplaced and your suggestions for RSN should be addressed to them directly, not spewed as a comment.
 
 
+8 # Caliban 2015-08-26 00:40
Merlin correctly states that RSN is much more an op-ed site than a news site. This is exactly what gives RSN its distinctive interest and appeal.

But Rondre is also correct that RSN's presentation of liberal opinion is slanted against Hillary Clinton in her current role as a shadow competitor to Bernie Sanders as the Democratic Party candidate for the Presidency in 2016.

I suspect Rondre is not the only liberal leaning reader of RSN who wishes it had not become so quickly an arm of the Sanders campaign. And I say this as a Sanders supporter--but one who would like to see a more varied set of issues and perspectives introduced into RSN's campaign coverage.
 
 
+5 # nice2bgreat 2015-08-26 04:43
Quoting Rondre:
This article on Hillary Clinton is not news; it is a manipulation of the facts...

Quoting Rondre:
If this writer thinks that Hillary Clinton is against black people he is absolutely delusional.


What does it take for Hillary's anti-Republican defense-force to peel their eyes from coasting past the 2016 Democratic Primaries straight into the General Election?

To combat Hillary's own regrettable words.

Hillary Clinton -- “Yeah, well, respectfully, if that is your position, then I will talk only to white people about how we are going to deal with a very real problem.”

How Hillary's other words, relevant to substantive issues, compare to Bernie Sanders, are of no interest to HC's anti-R defense-force.

So it's damage control for Hillary's lazy, dispassionate, but loyal D-lemmings so-hoping to ignore everything until the General Election.

With Hillary's words, her apologists must have heard the other shoe drop, and Joe Biden's name whispered in their ears.

Questions posed by Julius Jones were prefaced interestingly and were clear and concise (well qualified and narrowed) that could elicit an interesting answer. Real questions, reasonable questions from thoughtful, real people,

And Hillary's handlers interrupting prior to Hillary's first (stump-ish speech/filibust er /lecture/dismis sive) response to Mr. Jones is telling.

Rondre, did you watch the video or were HC's anti-R defense-force simply called into action?
.
 
 
-9 # kalpal 2015-08-26 05:48
There is no such thing as objective news reporting. A point is made each time a topic is chosen for discussion or reporting. This story took a quote of context in order to damn HRC for not ignoring all other attacks against her and picking up the banner of white racism as her only topic open for discussion.

It is typical of the way the media seems obsessed with destroying HRC. Her husband's success as president and her refusal to discard him for his philandering irks lots of media people who see it as their duty to grind her into dust. Especially in light of the fees she commands for giving speeches and for her being smarter than they are.

As hard as the "vast RW conspiracy" tried to destroy Bill, they are trying twice as hard to destroy HRC. If elected and she succeeds in governing as well as Bill did, they would be shown to be the morally and ethically bankrupt traitors the RW has been to the essence of being an American.
 
 
+6 # arquebus 2015-08-26 13:34
Of course Europeans don't see us as a true democracy, because we aren't and the founders never intended it to be. We are a democratic republic....big difference.

New England town hall meeting are true democracies.... can you imagine 300 million people trying to get a road paved or a pothole filled.
 
 
+4 # Vermont Grandma 2015-08-27 21:56
Quoting Rondre:
....This article on Hillary Clinton is not news; it is a manipulation of the facts and yet another example of "let's destroy Hillary Clinton"....

As I listened to the Black Lives Matter folks' conversation with Hillary Clinton at Keene, I heard very clearly that Hillary did NOT answer simple questions posed to her in a quiet, respectful manner: "What has changed in YOUR heart" since her involvement in the passage of legislation in the 1990s that led to mass incarceration of blacks. She did not answer that & instead, stated that at the time such legislation was passed it was a time of crime in the hood. Hillary wants to be the leader of the United States, but has no concrete ideas of how to exercise that leadership to help heal racism and its impact on black lives. She was asked for her ideas, what she would do differently; rather than answer, she lectured the Black Lives Matter folks telling them that, essentially, the ball is in their court to keep up the pressure and if they don't nothing will happen.

I also heard the victim-blaming that one of the black lives matter folks quietly, calmly pointed out to Hillary she'd just done. & then she said essentially that if the Black Lives Matter folks didn't want to come up with a set of proposals, she'd just talk to white folks.
Boardman's reporting is not slanted, nor was Hillary treated any way other than quietly respectful by Black Lives Matter folks who spoke with her in Keene, NH.
 
 
0 # WBoardman 2016-03-03 09:44
Leaving aside Rondre's ad hominem attacks,
this is not a news piece but an analysis piece –
and Rondre is free to disagree with the analysis,
but would be more persuasive to offer a counter-analysi s.

"I will talk only to white people" is indeed provocative,
that's why I used in in my headline – because I couldn't
believe she actually said that, but there it was, so what
was one to make of it?

My analysis was unflattering to Hillary, to be sure, but
Rondre and others offer not counter-facts in rebuttal.

The entire tape is available for anyone to judge for themselves,
and that's what one should.

If some conclude Hillary is anti-black, fine, but that seems
wrong to me. The point of this piece is to show how
shallow her pro-black instincts are. When she was a teenager
she campaigned for Goldwater. At the same time
Bernie Sanders was getting arrested protesting school
segregation.

What's saddest about Rondre's response is that it calls
for censorship, for suppression of politically incorrect
views (as determined by whom?) – instead of castigating
the messenger, Rondre might be better served by engaging
the substantive question: why did those words flow,
uncoerced, from Hillary Clinton's mouth?
 
 
+27 # danireland46 2015-08-25 18:04
Hillary has displayed this reaction to dialogue that makes her peevish. We've seen it when she was supporting/push ing Bill to the presidency; when she was first lady, when she was Senator, when she was Secretary of State, and now in reaction to Black Lives Matter.
This tendency to shift from discomfort to peevish and then straight on to angered dismissiveness is not what I want from a prospective POTUS.
 
 
+43 # Anne Frank 2015-08-25 18:15
As much as I despise Hillary, and understand that statistically the black population suffers more injustice than the white population, they both suffer the same injustices, and sweeping generalizations about white people are just as racist as sweeping generalizations about black people. Of course, reducing the problem of injustice in America to skin color allows the oligarchs to laugh at how we ignore culture and economics, and remain forever unable to unite around our common interests, and against our common oppressor, the one percent.
 
 
+25 # scott of dallas 2015-08-25 18:25
I don't think Hillary has been much of a progressive since perhaps she was still in college. Certainly in her years since reaching the Senate she has used post White House connections in order to enrich herself through the usual corporate entities and lobbies. Having said that, the Black Lives Matter representatives seem to have asked her to admit to them, on the spot, that everything she and her husband did during his administration as it impacted black people was wrong. Then, they wanted to chat.

If they had asked Bill Clinton to do the same thing, not only would he have refused, he would have devoted an hour toward defending his policies.

In Seattle, poor old Bernie Sanders, who never hurt a fly, gets really shabby treatment, as if he was the problem. Now, it is Hillary.

Black Lives Matter can continue to confront and insult 'liberal' politicians for as long as the politicians endure it; but if Black Lives Matter really wants success, it has to engage others as well as confront them.

Boardman dissects Hillary's every word like she is testifying in court. Well, she got jumped, and so she got defensive.

You can be on the right side of an issue, but still offend everyone so much that nobody is willing to talk to you.
 
 
+56 # Vardoz 2015-08-25 18:26
I understand BLACK LIVES MATTER anger but what they don't get is that if Bernie is not elected Black Lives will never matter to any other president. The lack of respect they showed him was an embarrassment. Bernie is a man who march with king. Black lives have always mattered to him and I think these woman handled it very badly. Making Sanders an enemy is just stupid. He is an ally.
 
 
+3 # chaucer2 2015-08-25 18:30
I do believe that Hillary needs a coach. Her beliefs are not coming out in the manner in which ...they should in order for her supporters, general public, enemies and friends to truly understand what she is thinking...what she will do..and/or..her feelings for the situation...wha tever it might be.....and what it is that she stands for........Havi ng coached people in the public eye...I do know that without the proper words, emotions and delivery, coming through, even the most sincere and the truly best do not come off looking viable; much less 'right for the job at hand'. She is not a Trump, without boundaries, nor is she a Bernie Sanders.followi ng a discernable ideal....She must find her own voice and then the public will have little trouble knowing who she really is.
 
 
-4 # hoffhort 2015-08-25 18:35
I thought the young activists were pretty rude to Hillary, and very long-winded. She listened patiently. I thought her answer in substance was good--it is true that policies and allocations of resources are what cause change, not rhetoric. I slso think it is highly unfair to hold a grudge against someone because of something that happened 21 years. In those days, "tough on crime" was a mantra that no politician could win office without reciting. Times are different now and policies can be different now. These activists also has to come to grips with the criminal behavior that poverty generates, and look inward a bit. I did not think Hillary was peevish, and I hate the underlying nastiness of this whole article. Very few people have what it takes to be president, so don't be so picky, people. AJust wait till the slime machine turns its attentiion to Bernie. Their aim will be to make him unelectable. Hillary is electable.
 
 
+2 # WBoardman 2015-08-27 21:30
[quote name="hoffhort" ]
"I thought the young activists were pretty rude to Hillary"

Really? Being quiiet, polite, respectful now equals "rude"?
Or was it the directness to the white woman that rubbed wrong?

" I slso think it is highly unfair to hold a grudge against someone because of something that happened 21 years."
[ago]
Seriously?
When the consequences of that "something," which is mass incarceration of black people, have continued to get worse for all those years, with no end in sight?

"come to grips with the criminal behavior that poverty generates, and look inward a bit."
You see what you're doing?
You're blaming the victims.

Or maybe all those banksters grew up in poverty?

"Hillary is electable."
You predict.
But if Hillary IS electable, that just puts her in the same class as Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, and other great Americans.
 
 
+13 # tiape 2015-08-25 18:48
One way of change that can be looked at now before the government gets a hold of policy changes is why are white people so afraid of black people that even the police don't feel safe around 'them' and have to shoot unarmed blacks in the back from a distance and then try to cover it up? The road to prison is made easy for a black person. Even though a black man (pardon for not remembering his name!) had invented a car along with Henry Ford, they don't get any credit or financial reward. There are many inventions from them that we still benefit from today. Where is the fear of black people being equal to everyone else coming from?
 
 
+22 # Wally Jasper 2015-08-25 19:00
Reply to chaucer2: Yeah, that's what politics is all about these days: being coached to say the "right" things, to look good, to respond appropriately. It's all a show meant to project an image. But if it's not coming from the heart, it all rings hollow and false and there's no way to cover that up. Hillary is a great example of that. What's so refreshing about Bernie is, he speaks his truth and follows it with action. There's nothing "coached" about him. It's called: authenticity.
 
 
+7 # Robbee 2015-08-25 19:38
re: # Vardoz 2015-08-25 18:26
"... if Bernie is not elected Black Lives will never matter to any other president." - nonsense! if bernie is not elected president, black lives will always matter to every dem president!

- hill is not the first to stumble over BLM, 1st bernie, then o'malley at first stumbled, o'malley almost as dismissive as hill: "all lives matter" - sadly, they each believe black lives matter but expressed themselves poorly, go figure! as their candidacies season, tho, it gets harder and harder to understand how hill held a meeting for which she had so poorly prepared

bernie got it almost immediately and eventually even hill will learn how to talk about blacks - go bernie!
 
 
+15 # elkingo 2015-08-25 21:38
The thing is that her remarks are redolent with her alienation from, her exclusionary consciousness toward black people. It's the classic "you people" stance. What do "you people" - you "others" want from us? Everything about her suggests this.She hasn't got an ounce of "there but for the grace of God go I.' This is implicitly racist, (OK so is the whole white capitalist culture). But no such person should be president. Elaborate sophistical blaming the victim. Boardman again right on the money!
 
 
+32 # Old4Poor 2015-08-26 00:04
As I prepare for a lot of thumbs down: More than one issue can be vital at the same time.

That our Black Citizens are being murdered en masse is very real and urgent.

As someone who is elderly and disabled, the security of Social Security is also vital to me. (Notice the word ALSO.) It is not a choice, both matter.

The powers that are running things do their best to keep us separated and at odds as to which issue deserves time and energy, when in truth so many do.

If I had managed to get to the Seattle rally to hear Bernie, which would be very difficult for me to do physically as I have serious mobility issues, I would have been ticked off when he was prevented from speaking by people who insist that only their one issues matters.

I suspect that most of the people in that audience also support the Black Lives Matter efforts and understand the issues involved, but why antagonize them assuming that anyone who is white does not understand and is against you?

I realize that life and death is very urgent and that we must do what we can to save our brothers and sisters from this brutality, but I need to live as well and without Social Security, my only income, I would be staving on the streets.

We need to stick together to make many changes in this country.
 
 
+12 # banichi 2015-08-26 03:15
Thanks for pointing out your truth, Old4Poor. I have tried also to make the same point you have made, that it is not just one issue that is important to either Bernie's campaign or BLM. Sadly, so far I don't see any reporting that would tell me that the BLM movement understands this. It may be that the MSM simply is not reporting such an understanding on the part of BLM, so I don't really know.

But here is what really concerns me about the reported attitudes thus far of BLM people who are speaking: Bernie got the issues right away and made it clear that he did, and that he supports justice for all on his web site. Given that, why have I not heard any real support from BLM for Bernie? It is a two-way street. There is a "we" in Bernie and his campaign, but where is the support for Bernie from BLM?

If the BLM movement does not get behind Bernie as partners in electing him, and his campaign fails, what are we all left with? A Hillary who doesn't understand how to listen to citizen concerns, and doesn't make open commitments to their needs like Bernie? A GOP candidate that does not care about anything but, in the end, bankers, billionaires, and corporate contributions?

Those are the choices I see. There must be a partnership to accomplish all of what Bernie has made his commitments to, is what is essential. We do it together, or not at all.
 
 
+9 # Old4Poor 2015-08-26 10:29
Thank you for these additional points.

Many issues in this culture are life or death to someone and Bernie is the best hope we have had in my lifetime (I am 72).

He has been a very active part of the Civil Rights Movement for as long a I can remember, as have I.

Cornel West has just spoken out about Bernie and endorsed him.
#FEEL THE BERN
 
 
+5 # Aaron Tovish 2015-08-26 05:02
Boardman calls the Times piece "hilarious." I read it. It's a good piece of journalism. I'm for Bernie and I was very impressed by the stance he has taken now on racism, but I can see what Hilary was trying to say: "I would like your input on this issue so that this time we get it right." Boardman has twisted this out of any recognizable shape.
As for the headline quote, in context it is clear that she was being ironic. Maybe irony is not the best attitude in such a setting, but it did move the conversation along. Here is what Jones had to say to Habberman after the fact: "“I think that what’s happening is Hillary Clinton’s saying, ‘We tried to change hearts, and it didn’t work.’ ” He might take issue with that, but he at least reflected the point accurately.
 
 
+1 # WBoardman 2015-08-28 13:28
That Aaron Tovish says Maggie Haberman produced a "good piece of journalism" is a sad measure of what is considered good journalism these days – and also hilarious.

Equally hilarious is Tovish accepting as adequate a presidential candidate whose forty years of experience in public life have led her to a position on race in America that amounts to: well, if mass incarceration isn't the answer, what do you think we should do?

How can anyone be impressed by such a pathetic stance? She's now an unwashed newbie, folks.

Clinton's irony is not apparent to me. Explain if you can.

Clearly she's being sarcastic, a very different attitude, by echoing "respectfully" from Jones – but whatever was in Clinton's head, her words didn't move the conversation forward. Her words stopped the conversation dead in its tracks and helped her avoid giving any real answers to serious questions.

What Jones says (tactically?) after the fact is irrelevant to assessing what Clinton did or didn't do.

Haberman's piece is low-key but clear water-carrying for Clinton. It's what one would expect from the Times. Subtly, not wildly biased. It just needs careful reading.

Here's the New Yorker's way of carrying out the same Clinto-favorabl e task:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/actually-hillary-hearts-do-change?mbid=nl_082915_Daily_Photo&CNDID=25492310&spMailingID=8025787&spUserID=MzQyNDAyODI2OTIS1&spJobID=743392349&spReportId=NzQzMzkyMzQ5S0
 
 
+4 # kalpal 2015-08-26 05:38
As Chris Rock pointed out, it is far more important that blacks stop talking about racism than censuring white racists about their racism. If only the victims shut up about being victimized whites can begin to assume that no victimization is occurring.
 
 
+13 # Vegan_Girl 2015-08-26 06:44
Conversations can be revealing but they can also be misleading as we all say silly things sometimes.

In case of Hillary, I prefer to look at her long record. It is much more reliable.

In my view, she is beholden to wall street and the oligarchs ( by now she is part of the 1%) and will not lift a finger for the working class.
 
 
-4 # mmcmanus 2015-08-26 09:13
This article is a distorted piece of crapaganda, designed to put someone like Cruz, Trump or those other morons in the White House.
 
 
+3 # jubileeshine 2015-08-26 10:21
why did BLM announce they would attempt to disrupt Clinton's event? Why give notice?
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2015-08-26 12:03
And why did her "security" block their entry?

Knowing they were coming, she could have saved a few seats... unless of course she was all about managing the optics.
 
 
+6 # bmiluski 2015-08-26 15:47
Yeah jubileeshine... .why not behave like the two women who at a Social Security rally in Seattle on August 9, who interrupted Bernie Sanders. They took over the podium as the candidate began to speak. They waved their arms and shouted, silencing Sanders.
Why not behave like Tea-bagger/brow n shirt idiots. They never announced when they would disrupt townhall meetings, candidate speeches, etc.
 
 
0 # elkingo 2015-08-26 10:50
O, so much good stuff. Old4...yes, the SS thing is relevant. Point here is we are being swamped by an all-fronts reactionary fascist revival. Here: suppose there is an impoverished black mother out there whose son has just been murdered by the cops and whose SS is in jeopardy of being rescinded. See what I mean? mmc -Boardman doesen't want to put any of the Moron Brigade in the White House: that is nonsense.

And think: that somebody EVEN HAS TO SAY that Black Lives Matter??!! Don't you see how nuts we are - even the best of us? Yes, all lives matter, but there's a slight cavil: the cops are not wantonly murdering Whitey wholesale. (OK, a few,let's be fair to the cops.) And can we, Whitey, really understand what black folks, esp. young men experience - simply on going out in the street? I don't think so: you "have to be there."

I must reiterate that racism is classism, and classism is an endemic structural fact of capitalism, now resurgent in its fundamentalist form, which is both obsolete and on track to destroy the world. I'd love to say "you heard it here first", but you didn't.

PS: Bianch: I don't like your thanking Old4 for HIS/HER truth: smacks of a kind of disqualifying relativism. It's THE truth -
if you have any kind of humane concerns.
 
 
+4 # banichi 2015-08-26 21:20
I don't know why you don't like my thanking Old4, I am 67 and Old4 spoke for me as well. No relativism involved. Yes, it IS the truth.

Sorry it struck you as offensive, that was not intended.
 
 
+2 # cordleycoit 2015-08-26 18:25
There have been seven hundred or more people executed by the police this year. most of them are Black. Life matters to me Black or other.It is similar to lynching or ethnic cleansing. A personal aside:place one ethnic group over another is to fall into a dangerous trap called P/C.
 
 
+2 # Bruce Gruber 2015-08-27 10:04
All the comments displaying 'reaction' against "the ideology of racial white guilt" is part of the justification for the existence of BLACK LIVES MATTER. Regardless of its degree, the projection of paternalistic, self-righteous superiority accompanies any presumption of disdain for an expressed complaint of inequity. Hillary has apparently never had a sensitivity training experience.

There's no question that Bernie Sanders has personified for decades the reality that taxes are the cost of our collective effort to solve problems and address citizens concerns. There is NO "too expensive" excuse for us to neglect inequity or fail to invest in progress. David Koch's 1980 Libertarian Party Platform in his bid for the Vice-presidency . Taxless, non-governance in celebration of freedom for the accumulation of wealth and power ... the definition of the only principle offered by the Republican offshoot of the John Birch Society fascist vision for the 'superiors'.

The Hillary Clinton campaign's attempt to walk the tightrope over and above these competing philosophies is the pragmatic expression of indifference to leadership and maintenance of that "Status Quo" in politics. Trump and Bernie's campaigns offer insight into the frustrations of widely divergent political views. Biden should be very cautious that the "ANYBODY BUT BERNIE" establishment may "Bern" Joe's favorable reputation as a good guy into that of a pawn.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN