Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz have as a much of a shot at becoming the Democratic and Republican nominees for president as Iggy Azalea does at being honored at next year’s Black Girls Rock.

And yet both Sanders and Cruz continued to dance with delusion despite more and more evidence that this just isn’t their election cycle to become president. It’s sore-loser season for the candidates and their supporters. To quote Rihanna, “Poor dat.”

Earlier this week, Sanders told CNN’s Chris Cuomo on New Day about his chances of scoring the nomination, saying, “It’s a narrow path, but we do have a path. And the idea that we should not contest in California—our largest state, let the people of California determine what the agenda of the Democratic Party is and who the candidate for president should be—is pretty crazy.”

I agree with Sanders on certain matters. He should not leave the race. He should try to do well—if not win—in California. He should stay in the race to push the Democratic agenda to better resemble real progressive politics, instead of the Republican-lite “triangulation” that Hillary Clinton and her husband push. Moreover, Sanders does not owe it to Clinton to convince his voters to support her for president in a general election.

However, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Sanders spoke of winning the nomination by way of superdelegates—a stance that seems completely antithetical to the spirit of his campaign. At this point, Clinton is hundreds of regular delegates ahead of Sanders and is millions of votes ahead in the popular vote. In other words, the revolution Sanders spoke of has limits—winning by turning to “the establishment” would contradict his outsider ideology. It would make him no better than the people he purports to be better than.

Sanders’ wife, Jane, has said, “At the end, you know, we’re not calling superdelegates and saying, Will you switch your vote?” And yet it’s been reported that Sanders has personally called some undecided superdelegates to win their support. Meanwhile, Clinton’s superdelegates have complained about being harassed by Sanders’ supporters.

Y’all. Y’all. Y’all. It’s one thing to keep on keep-keeping on, but it’s another to behave like a soft-baked bitch about it.

What frustrates me about Sanders at this juncture of the campaign is that there hasn’t been any real self-reflection, and, by extension, admission of failure on his part. As a southerner, I was vexed as hell by his repeated dismissal of his southern state losses. The typical southern Democrat isn’t white or conservative, but black and moderate-to-fairly-progressive depending on the region. Perhaps it’s due to him being a fairly new Democrat, but you don’t diss the most dedicate voting bloc of the Democratic Party—especially when you don’t mind championing your victories in lily-white states that are as much a Red State as Mississippi and Georgia are. Likewise, while it’s true that poorer Americans vote less, of those that did, they voted more so for Hillary Clinton. That means 1) Sanders’ populist message failed to connect with the poorer voters that do vote, 2) he failed to reach those that do not.

In sum: aww man, homie, your bad.

Read the rest at Complex.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

would sooner have a threesome with David Duke and the ghost of Barry Goldwater than vote for Donald Trump, but there is something about his political ascension that I find somewhat inspiring.

Not the racism. Not the misogyny. And no, not the xenophobia. Trump’s frontrunner status reminds me – an ambitious but not exactly patient person – that dreams can come true, just not necessarily when I say they should.

There is an old saying: “It’s not the appointed time, but the anointed time.” It’s rooted in the Biblical passage, “For the revelation awaits an appointed time; it speaks of the end and will not prove false. Though it linger, wait for it; it will certainly come and will not delay.” I have not been to church since the last Destiny’s Child album, but that sentiment speaks to me, and Trump’s trajectory this campaign season has served as a demonstration of that wise advice: wait for your time, however long that may be. Then seize it.

Trump, who won five more primaries on Tuesday, has been teasing a presidential run on and off since 1987. As in, Donald Trump’s presidential ambitions on record are a year older than the man I hope one day helps me play out my Beyoncé happily-ever-after scenario (although if he does me dirty, he’ll get the Lemonade treatment, too). I was impressed by Trump after reading Politico’s February profile of the reality star and real estate mogul’s plot-by-plot campaign to become a credible presidential contender.

Sure, Republican voters ought to know better than to be so enamored with a clownish political novice, but that’s not his fault. The point is, timing is everything, and Trump was shrewd enough to finally run when he had an actual chance at winning.

There are other examples of people achieving success later in life. I’ve loved watching Wendy Williams, whom I used to listen to on the radio, go off to daytime, succeed immensely and broaden her brand farther than past naysayers – who wondered whether her unfiltered radio style would translate well in the daytime TV format – ever expected. Similarly, I like that Viola Davis is finally being treated as the exceptional talent that she is, leading a primetime network show as a black actor in her 40s after years of actively working in Hollywood, too often relegated to supporting roles.

But there is something about Donald Trump’s political takeover that I find particularly motivating. He’s been thinking about this for nearly three decades now, but minus the false start in 2000, when he considered running as part of the Reform party, he stuck more with his businesses and television career. And somehow, this novice with no experience gauged his moment, and he has managed to yap his way into a credible chance at becoming president. It’s frightening, yes, but I still find it motivating for pursuing my own goals.

Read the rest at The Guardian.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

When it comes to criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I’m reminded of the way criticism is often leveled at Beyoncé, or “Bayoncé,” as Clinton has mistakenly called her.

In my eyes, Beyoncé is as close to perfect as this world is going to get. But no one is totally perfect. Now, I’m not in the business of speaking ill of my favorite Creole, but I can understand someone taking issue with select matters. Say, her being hyper-capitalistic. However, as is the case with Beyoncé, whatever legitimate gripes one might have about Clinton often gets lost in the noise drowning out what could be legitimate criticism.

Because Clinton elicits such visceral anger from her detractors, many look for any available reason to condemn her. The latest example of this would be people losing their damn minds because she mentioned that she keeps hot sauce in her bag during an interview with Power 105.1’s “The Breakfast Club.” Because she made this comment during a radio program that targets black people, some felt Clinton was pandering.

However, no matter what your uninformed faux politico or Donald Trump might tell you, Clinton has been talking about her love of hot sauce since the first Destiny’s Child album. Actually, she’s been talking about hot sauce since Girls Tyme. Clinton has mentioned her love of hot sauce to black and mainstream media outlets for more than two decades. So, to be clear, when it comes to her eating habits and the hot sauce she drowns her food in, she got that fire, she got that fire, girl, holla at HRC if you want that Oscar Meyer.

After some conceded just that, the outrage shifted to Charlamagne Tha God jokingly telling Clinton that her admission of her hot sauce habit on the show might seem like pandering. Clinton’s response was, “Is it working?” It was deadpan humor, but Clinton had a grin on her face. Why? Because it was a joke. You can either laugh or not, but to suggest that it connotes anything other than bad comedic timing is the kind of hyperbolic antics that I find headache-inducing. Clinton loves her hot sauce and there are plenty of folks out here that need to get drunk off some chill.

And since we’re on the subject of pandering, for the love of God, let go of Hillary Clinton dancing on Ellen. Clinton was appearing on a daytime television show in which she was asked by the host —who often makes dancing a central component of the telecast—and her black DJ to try the latest dance trend (to that audience, anyway). That’s why you do on daytime TV: silly-ass shit to relate to Americans who don’t really know a great deal about policy, but tend to be way too into the idea of voting for a candidate’s charisma. Like I told y’all before, the game is the game.

Moreover, there’s the reality that, if Hillary Clinton didn’t go directly to outlets that appeal to black voters, she—and, for that matter, Bernie Sanders—would be accused of ignoring key Democratic voting blocs. You know, like Republicans. If anything, I find Sanders’ dismissal of southern voting states—which also happen to encompass large black populations—to be more offensive than Clinton dancing off beat and talking about hot sauce on a morning radio show.

Pandering is Mitt Romney asking black kids, “Who let the dogs out?” A better example of a politician being condescending is Rand Paul taking a field trip to Howard University and trying to lecture students on issues the students understood better than he did.

Make no mistake: this is not me declaring #ImWithHer. I don’t despise her as some of my friends do, but she’s not exactly my favorite candidate. For the record, neither is Bernie Sanders. As of now, I’m planning to vote for “Bayoncé.”

What I will advise, however, is that for those who detest Clinton and want to let it all out day after day, hour after hour, minute after minute on social media—shall you proceed? Yes indeed. Only, can you try to limit your criticisms to policy? There is plenty of reason for condemnation there.

Read the rest at Complex.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

What song do you think Marco Rubio cried to after his crushing defeat in his home state of Florida on Tuesday? An admitted 2Pac fan, I would put money on Rubio reflecting on his career with a loop of “So Many Tears.” While some claimed to be moved by his “heartfelt” remarks about the brutishness of Donald Trump and his campaign, offered days prior to Rubio’s exit, I felt nothing.

Rubio deserved to lose because he was an abysmal candidate. You may hate me, but it ain’t no lie (baby, bye bye bye).

Rubio, like Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Lindsey Graham, and every other floundering Republican candidate during this election, condemns Trump with insults like “carnival barker,” “clown,” “con man”—insults meant to convey that Trump is too much of a showman to be taken seriously. What these slights get right is that Trump campaigns like an entertainer. In fact, Donald Trump is basically running his campaign the same way one would orchestrate a reality show.

Trumps treats his political opponents the same way nemeses treat each other on any Real Housewives franchise. There is a genius in how Trump can encapsulate a political adversary’s greatest flaw in as few words as possible. Ask Jeb! Bush about his “low energy.” Trump referring to Ted Cruz as “Lyin’ Ted” is akin to NeNe Leakes coining the name “Wig” for Kim Zolciak on Real Housewives of Atlanta. Or how I have referred to Leakes in my writing and tweets as “Baloo.” These insults stick because Trump is able to disparage a foe in an entertaining way.

And like any bitchy reality star (this applies to men and women alike, FYI), Trump loves a tit-for-tat, which is why every Republican debate has mirrored a reality show reunion. When he announced that he would not be attending the now-canceled debate Fox News scheduled for March 21, all I could think of was Draya Michele bowing out of the Basketball Wives reunions because she was tired of talking about the same bullshit. To wit, Trump tweeted: “How many times can the same people ask the same question?”

Trump is narcissistic, dramatic, and completely out of his depth in terms of actual policymaking. However, what Trump’s critics continue to misunderstand is that that last issue doesn’t matter—his narcissism and intuitive understanding of drama make him great at campaigning. By centering on the theatrics of the campaign trail, he is presently winning winning winning.

Trump’s critics may cry that his approach prevents debates from digging into anything substantive, but is this a stance rooted in reality? Does anyone want (or recognize) substance? We live in a country where, as of September 2015, 43 percent of Republicans still believed that President Obama is Muslim. A 2012 study found that one in three Americans could not pass a naturalization civics test. And when it comes to the GOP candidates, a lot of them are just as empty on policy as Trump—notably on domestic issues like health care (they want to repeal Obamacare but provide no clear alternative) and the economy (we don’t want debt, but let’s give rich people huge tax cuts).

In January, Robert Gates, the former Defense Secretary for President George W. Bush and President Obama, said of those candidates who had promised to “carpet bomb” ISIS: “Well, they—first of all, they don’t know what they’re talking about. Carpet bombing would be completely useless. It’s totally contrary to the American way of war. Total disregard for civilians. So I mean, part of the concern that I have with the campaign, particularly when it comes to national security, is that the solutions being offered are so simplistic and so at odds with the reality of the rest of the world, with the way the world really works.

Read the rest at Complex.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

Last night, I found myself singing an impromptu rendition of Toni Braxton’s “How Could An Angel Break My Heart?” upon word that the legendary Foxy Brown had endorsed Donald Trump for president. I mean, that’s some sh-t I would expect from Smooth or Sylk-E. Fyne, but certainly not Fox Boogie. The New York Daily News, which has such a hard on for Trump right now, published the story, leading with “Move over, Stacey Dash.”

Oh my God, the disrespect.

They quote the rapper claiming that while she loves Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, she’s supporting Trump’s presidential bid.

Foxy apparently says: “No matter how many people sabotage his campaign, it keeps growing and growing and growing. I know so many people won’t agree with me and will try to change my mind, but I’m a smart girl. I’m excited … I haven’t been this excited in so long. I know people say he’s a racist, but that’s just crazy.”

With this quote came many of us who grew up with her music bewildered, promising not to return to the Hot Spot or bar, y’all until Inga Marchand took a hard look at herself and her choices. Alas, there is now no reason to fear the politics of Foxy Brown.

Foxy took to Instagram to refute report, writing: “I am in no way endorsing Trump. What I said verbatim was Trump had tenacity, much like I said Hillary Clinton I love dearly and Bernie Sanders I absolutely adore.”

You see that? The evil, vicious media tried to turn Foxy Brown into Azealia Banks, who actually did endorse Trump for president. I can understand why the linkage in theory. After all, Azealia Banks is just Foxy Brown without the hits. And you know, Foxy Brown has been accused of spitting on folks, which is sort of a Trump supporter thing to do. Trump and Foxy would probably have an enjoyable dinner of Trump steaks, talking about “the haters” and losers.

Read the rest at VH1.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

Here’s what’s fascinating about Caitlyn Jenner: Since undergoing her transformation, she has gone from being part of the most fortunate and privileged group on the planet—wealthy, white, and male—to a community which is more susceptible to violent attacks, poverty, and varying forms of discrimination than any other. Despite her status as a trans woman, Caitlyn is still rich, still white, and certainly more famous than ever. Even so, she is considered a minority now, and one shouldn’t expect the demographic shift to go completely smoothly. On the other hand, who would have thought she’d have the hubris to step into the spotlight and serve as a de facto spokesperson for a community which, as it turns out, she knows very little about.

Perhaps it’s problematic to reduce a woman to one voting issue. But when that woman is outspoken on national TV, and positioning herself as a representative for others like her—one who is already more privileged than many people she represents—yes, she should be held to a different standard.

To her credit, though, Caitlyn Jenner wants to learn. And through her reality show, I Am Cait, she is getting schooled by her trans sisters on national television. Yet there is a stubbornness to Jenner that is increasingly painful to watch. During the show’s season premiere, which aired earlier this week, Jenner defiantly defended the GOP as a party of tolerance.

 In a heated debate, trans activist and writer Jennifer Finney Boylan asked Jenner who among the GOP presidential field would be most supportive of trans people. In response, Jenner claimed, “All of ‘em.” Jenner said this without adding “SIKE!” or howling in ironic laughter. Instead, Jenner continued, “None of the Republicans say, ‘Oh, I hate trans people,’ or, ‘I hate gays.’ Nothing like that. They do more, ‘I want a thriving economy so every trans person has a job.’”
When Boylan noted that conservatives were behind efforts to repeal the anti-discrimination ordinance known as the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO), that offered broad non-discrimination protections, Jenner said, “Don’t go there.” Jenner went on to say, “Republicans and conservatives are not these horrible people out there trying to oppress people… I don’t know anything of what they said down there, but I’m not blaming it on Republicans and conservatives.”
Jenner admits she knows nothing “of what they said down there,” but speaks on the issue anyway. Meanwhile, Boylan was right: Conservatives and religious leaders managed to defeat the anti-discrimination ordinance by preying on voters’ transphobia with signs like “NO MEN in Women’s Bathrooms.”
Interestingly enough, when the subject of Hillary Rodham Clinton came up, Jenner dismissed her, arguing, “[Hillary] couldn’t care less about women. She cares about herself.”
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

I wasn’t the least bit surprised to see the recent orgy of idiocy and overreaction that was the response to a recent picture Vanity Fair published of Michael B. Jordan and Ryan Coogler.

Instead of focusing on what the story was actually about – Jordan and Coogler being “style disruptors” – many folks opted instead to fixate on what they felt was an image of two men too close for comfort. Like I anything else I view through the lens of social media, I find that it only magnifies what is already there. In this instance, what is already there is an unfortunate obsession with hyper-masculinity which makes so many poor unfortunate souls believe that their manhood is so fragile that two Black men cannot show any display of affection without it being dismissed as something “gay” or “effeminate.” Moreover, it highlights a very infantile understanding of human sexuality.

So often on social media I have seen the simplest acts be categorized as gay. You cannot be a man and hug another man without it being gay. You cannot be a man and wear certain pieces of clothing or shoes without it being gay. You cannot be a man who enjoys butt play performed by a woman without it being considered gay. I’m surprised I’ve yet to see someone claiming if you are a man who washes his ass too long, he’s probably gay, too. Then again, I’ve done a good job of filtering out Left Behind Twitter and I Should Have Left You In Middle School Facebook from my feeds.

For the millionth time, here’s how homosexuality with men works: a man puts his penis inside of another man or vice versa. Most other things are highly debatable.

I’ve looked at shrill declarations that no one should be allowed to touch anyone else’s head besides their wife or husband. This is from both men and women alike who have been suckered into believing that an emotionally inept, far too inhibited Black man is the only way a straight Black man can be. This is so frustrating because it’s 2016 and one wonders how so many have free reign to be so asinine?

Not to mention, how afraid are some of these people of their bodies and human contact? Why must everything be sexualized? Can two people touch each other and have it be totally platonic? It seems to happen all the time for Black women, but let another Black man do it and – gasp – he must secretly be the muse behind a certain Frank Ocean song.

To be fair, I used to be guilty of this. While I was comfortable in my sexuality, I used to hesitate about embracing other straight Black men – mostly due to fear of them being unjustly considered gay simply because I touched them. (It’s not contagious, though.) Also, more often than not, a hug is just a hug. A dab is just a dab. Me touching a close friend’s head does not in any way equate a sexual act.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

As it becomes ever more likely that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, a host of people have announced that they either won’t vote for Clinton, or won’t vote at all, if Bernie Sanders isn’t the candidate on the ballot. I believe there’s a self-righteousness about this that only people with a certain level of privilege can afford to have.

Among them is the author of the recent Huffington Post column, “The Problem With Hillary, Chez, Is I Don’t Vote Republican”. Radio show host Russ Belville wrote:

If Donald Trump wins the presidency over Hillary Clinton, it’s not the fault of people like me who won’t vote for Republicans. It’s the fault of the Democratic Party for nominating a Republican.

There’s a long list of policies that Belville and others argue keeps Clinton in step with Republicans. But anyone actually paying attention to the Democratic primary debates of this election season will have noticed that Clinton and Sanders agree on more issues than they disagree on, and that both their platforms are polar opposites to those the GOP candidates are promoting. Sanders has even pushed Clinton to the left on certain issues.

But like the people who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 in protest of Al Gore, Bernie-or-nobody voters are making a decision with implications that go far beyond their narrow frame of reference. To use Belville as sacrificial lamb, again:

We survived eight years of George W Bush, and though it did us a lot of harm and killed thousands of us, he didn’t appoint himself dictator and abolish the supreme court or anything crazy. Democracy continued.

Actually, had George W Bush never been elected, thousands of Americans would have never died in the Iraq war, not to mention many thousands more Iraqis. Then there is the matter of Hurricane Katrina, in which a natural disaster turned into a man-made catastrophe due to the incompetence of the Bush administration and their total lack of regard for the lives of poor black people in New Orleans.

Read the rest at The Guardian.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

Here’s what will likely happen if Donald Trump becomes the 45th president of the United States of America: You may be shocked, you may be disgusted and you may think it’s about to be the worst four years of your life. I get it. The guy who hosted a show featuring NeNe Leakes, Brandi Glanville and La Toya Jackson has been elected president. It’s a dropkick to your better senses.

Even so, it’s highly improbable that you will move to another country. Anyone who says this is lying like hell. I know it. You know it. Yet people are threatening to do it anyway. Why even bother?

As previously reported, during a recent episode of The View, Raven-Symoné said of the looming presidential election: “My confession for this election is, ‘If any Republican gets nominated, I’m gonna move to Canada with my entire family.’ Is that bad? I already have my ticket. I literally bought my ticket, I swear.”

Bless her heart: She meant if any Republican wins the presidency, but this is the same person who said she was from “every continent in Africa.” I’d advise her to think a little harder before she speaks, but hey, that’s not my business.

In any event, joining her in this threat is fellow Disney star-turned-adult annoyance Miley Cyrus. The singer and attention seeker took to Instagram to write the following overly dramatic caption: “Yes. That is a tear rolling down my cheek dripping off the end of my nose….. This makes me so unbelievable [sic] scared and sad…. Not only for our country but for animals that I love more than anything in this world.”

Does Trump have some Cruella de Vil-esque animal policy that I know nothing about? Will animals be building the wall he keeps (falsely) promising his supporters? She went on and on before ultimately declaring, “Honestly, [f–k] this [s–t]. I am moving if this is my president! I don’t say things I don’t mean!”

Oh, girl. I guess.

Don’t get me wrong—they can both leave. I’d offer to help them pack. Still, this is a bluff. What irks me most about their empty pledges is that, given that they’re both rich and famous, they can easily evade whatever consequences the rest of us would have to contend with should a basket case win the race to become commander in chief. So, boohoo all you want, wealthy celebrities, but I wish y’all would do so in silence.

Meanwhile, publications like the New York Daily News, which has been upping its anti-Trump coverage by the day, just dropped a goofy cover for a story entitled, “The Complete Guide to Fleeing President Donald Trump’s America.” Teasing the cover, the publication tweeted: “LAND OF THE FLEE: Dust off your passports, we’re here to help you get moving.”

Joining them in these stunt-queen-like antics are Gawker, which published a piece on how to move to Canada, from someone who actually left after George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004; and travel booking service Kayak, which is giving Trump haters a one-way ticket to Canada.

Read the rest at The Root.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

The late Whitney Houston once infamously told Wendy Williams during an interview, “Watch what you say, baby girl. Watch what the f–k you say.”

In the past few weeks, select black activists and voters have more or less been telling Hillary Clinton the same thing while a speech she gave back in 1996 continues to haunt her in 2016. As many Clinton skeptics, Bernie Sanders supporters and random Republicans alike will tell you across social media, the then-first lady referred to some youths engaged in criminal activity as “superpredators” during the speech, in which she was lobbying for a crime bill. In late February, Charlotte, N.C.-based activist Ashley Williams confronted her during a private fundraiser about that speech.

Holding a sign saying, “We have to bring them to heel,” which quotes part of Clinton’s controversial remarks, Williams called on her to “explain for the record” and asked why she “called black youth ‘superpredators.’” After Williams asked why Clinton didn’t address the matter in a prior debate, Clinton said, “You know what? Nobody’s ever asked me before. You’re the first person to ask me, and I’m happy to address it.”

The dominant narrative online has been that Clinton never answered Williams directly, since the activist was whisked away as Clinton supporters called her “rude.” My problem with this depiction is twofold. One, that’s not exactly how it happened; and two, I’m not so much fixated on poor phrasing as I am on the poor decision-making behind even poorer policy.

Speaking with The Nation, when asked whether she was satisfied with Clinton’s response, Williams said: “No, I think that her response reflected Clinton’s inconsistency. But we know that she’s been inconsistent on these issues, and we know that according to her these are not issues that she’s interested in. She’s campaigning around this state right now, trying to get the black vote, and she’s going around saying, ‘It’s time to listen.’ So she had an opportunity to listen last night, and she wasn’t listening.”

There is a reason that Clinton asked Williams at one point, “Do you want to hear the facts or do you just want to talk?” Clinton said this because that’s what Williams did: talk and talk over her when she attempted to speak. A conversation typically goes best when it’s equal parts listening and responding from all participants involved.

I admire what Williams did as far as taking her grievances to a direct target goes. That aside, there is a difference between wanting dialogue and confrontation: Both can lead to substantive exchanges, but the latter is more prone to pure spectacle than the other. Such as what happened here.

Clinton was confronted once again about that “superpredator” remark this week while campaigning in Minneapolis. My reaction is the same. To her credit, Clinton responded to the initial confrontation by way of a statement to the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart: “Looking back, I shouldn’t have used those words, and I wouldn’t use them today.”

I agree with Capehart in that the use of “superpredator” was not so much a summation of black youths as it was a jarring descriptor for a particular strain of juveniles who, as Clinton remarked back then, displayed signs of having “no conscience, no empathy.” It is dishonest to pretend that there is not nihilism in certain segments of poorer communities.

That said, I disagree with Capehart’s interpretation of the comment she made after her “superpredator” description: “We can talk about why they ended up that way.” Clinton said it in a dismissive, callous way, when the matter warranted greater consideration. To that end, while it’s nice of her to now tout her history of “lifting up children and young people who’ve been let down by the system or by society,” she turned a blind eye to that situation in 1996 because it wasn’t politically helpful at the time.

In 1994, Clinton’s now-opponent, Bernie Sanders, had the following to say on the floor of the House of Representatives about the crime bill Clinton had been lobbying for:

Mr. Speaker, it is my firm belief that clearly, there are some people in our society who are horribly violent, who are deeply sick and sociopathic, and clearly these people must be put behind bars in order to protect society from them. But it is also my view that through the neglect of our government and through a grossly irrational set of priorities, we are dooming tens of millions of young people to a future of bitterness, misery, hopelessness, drugs, crime and violence.

And yet, one week later Sanders voted for that bill anyway—a bill co-sponsored by the current vice president of the first black president. It was not the final version, but Sanders voted for that one, too.

Read the rest at The Root.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone