March 24, 2008--Our "Mex"
Putting aside the political significance of Bill Richardson’s endorsement of Barack Obama—how many votes will it sway, how many Super Delegates will be tipped—is the harsh light it shines on both Clintons’ arrogance and increasingly less than subtle racism.
And how sad that is, considering that they have labored for a professional lifetime to support and develop programs to help the very likes of the Richardsons and Obamas.
After courting Richardson shamelessly—Bill Clinton even traveled all the way to New Mexico to watch the Super Bowl with him—once he endorsed Obama they and their surrogates quickly moved to diss him. Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist and attack dog (or whatever he’s calling himself these days) played down the significance of the endorsement, saying that the time “when it could have been effective has long since passed.” (See NY Times article linked below.)
Translation: The only political value Richardson has is with Hispanic voters; and with the Latino-dominated primaries now over, he’s useless to us.
James Carville, of Clinton War Room fame, put it even more directly, calling it an “act of betrayal.” In his own words he said: “Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing . . . is ironic.”
What Carville forgot to mention is that Judas was also one of Christ’s disciples. And this gets closer to the heart of the matter:
The Clintons have always viewed Richardson, and other people of color they “elevated,” as belonging to them, as versions of disciples. Having derivative rather than independent qualities and value and thus being in lifetime thrall to them. It is only through association with us that you have been recognized and rewarded. You were nothing special until we acted affirmatively. And as such, you owe us.
This instrumental form of association calls for the lowest form of relating. And, in this case, also smacks of racism. In effect—Richardson is eternally expected to be their “Mex.”
And this is unfolding at the very time that we are being reminded of Bill Clinton’s “use” of Jessie Jackson and, yes, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright who were prominently among the ministers the then President turned to for “spiritual guidance” when he got nailed, sorry, in the Lewinsky affair.
Billy Graham wasn’t available so Bill Clinton turned to Jackson who was craving the spotlight and redemption since his own sexually misbehavior was also making headlines. When in trouble, the Clintons turn to people who they can remind would not be who they are or have the access they have if it weren’t for them.
Jackson, having provided this service, and having at the time been rewarded by uncommon association and visibility, was recently tossed aside during the South Carolina primary when Bill Clinton dealt the first of the race cards when he attempted invidiously to link Jessie Jackson with Barack Obama in the hope that this would scare away white voters.
This was patently al calculatedly about race because, if he wished, he could just as easily have noted that two other presidential aspirants won the SC primary but not their party’s nomination. Both of whom are white—Pat Buchanan and John Edwards. Clinton’s choice of his (White) House Black Jessie Jackson to make his point about Obama tells us all we need to know—he was not making an objective historical observation but a racist one.
And, I forgot--if Richardson is Judas who in the Clinton analogy is Jesus?
And how sad that is, considering that they have labored for a professional lifetime to support and develop programs to help the very likes of the Richardsons and Obamas.
After courting Richardson shamelessly—Bill Clinton even traveled all the way to New Mexico to watch the Super Bowl with him—once he endorsed Obama they and their surrogates quickly moved to diss him. Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist and attack dog (or whatever he’s calling himself these days) played down the significance of the endorsement, saying that the time “when it could have been effective has long since passed.” (See NY Times article linked below.)
Translation: The only political value Richardson has is with Hispanic voters; and with the Latino-dominated primaries now over, he’s useless to us.
James Carville, of Clinton War Room fame, put it even more directly, calling it an “act of betrayal.” In his own words he said: “Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing . . . is ironic.”
What Carville forgot to mention is that Judas was also one of Christ’s disciples. And this gets closer to the heart of the matter:
The Clintons have always viewed Richardson, and other people of color they “elevated,” as belonging to them, as versions of disciples. Having derivative rather than independent qualities and value and thus being in lifetime thrall to them. It is only through association with us that you have been recognized and rewarded. You were nothing special until we acted affirmatively. And as such, you owe us.
This instrumental form of association calls for the lowest form of relating. And, in this case, also smacks of racism. In effect—Richardson is eternally expected to be their “Mex.”
And this is unfolding at the very time that we are being reminded of Bill Clinton’s “use” of Jessie Jackson and, yes, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright who were prominently among the ministers the then President turned to for “spiritual guidance” when he got nailed, sorry, in the Lewinsky affair.
Billy Graham wasn’t available so Bill Clinton turned to Jackson who was craving the spotlight and redemption since his own sexually misbehavior was also making headlines. When in trouble, the Clintons turn to people who they can remind would not be who they are or have the access they have if it weren’t for them.
Jackson, having provided this service, and having at the time been rewarded by uncommon association and visibility, was recently tossed aside during the South Carolina primary when Bill Clinton dealt the first of the race cards when he attempted invidiously to link Jessie Jackson with Barack Obama in the hope that this would scare away white voters.
This was patently al calculatedly about race because, if he wished, he could just as easily have noted that two other presidential aspirants won the SC primary but not their party’s nomination. Both of whom are white—Pat Buchanan and John Edwards. Clinton’s choice of his (White) House Black Jessie Jackson to make his point about Obama tells us all we need to know—he was not making an objective historical observation but a racist one.
And, I forgot--if Richardson is Judas who in the Clinton analogy is Jesus?
posted by Steven Zwerling at
11:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home