I see that I wasn’t the only person who was surprised that Hillary Clinton went to the National Association of Black Journalists and said that she wanted to address the plight of the 1.4 million black men behind prison. The Clinton Administration played a significant role in the problem.
Mary Mitchell of the Chicago Sun-Times writes:
So it was pandering on Clinton’s part to show up and paint herself as the possible savior of 1.4 million lost black souls. Because the truth of the matter is the root of the “black male crisis” can be traced back to the Clinton era.
In a rare private interview with a group of black columnists from across the country, Clinton was reminded that the explosion in the prison population — which has led to a whole host of social ills in the black community — was spawned, in part, by Bill Clinton’s decision to sign a bill that created the wide disparity in the way people are punished for crimes involving crack cocaine, compared to those who are prosecuted for powder cocaine.
Derrick Z. Jackson, a columnist for the Boston Globe, asked Clinton about the irony and pointed out that even as he signed the bill, the former president called the law “immoral and unjust.”
“Was the law a mistake?” Jackson asked.
In response, Hillary hemmed and hawed about the political trading her husband had to do to get a crime bill passed that put more police officers on the street.
“There were some unfortunate compromises . . . one in particular that has come to symbolize the disparity and unfairness in the criminal justice system,” Clinton acknowledged. “As a matter as practical politics, we might not be able to get from where we are from 100-1 to parity. We might be able to get to 10-1.”
When the same question was put to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) the next day, there was no equivocation.
“Yes, it was a mistake,” he told the same group of columnists. “There was a lot of talk of super-predators, and the whole environment in which this [bill] was generated. Even though the politics was tough in the ’90s, I took some tough votes to make sure we didn’t see the perpetuation [of this unfairness].”
Read more.
August 15, 2007 at 1:20 am
the writer seems to feel insulted, and rightly so, by Hillary. I feel it and I’m white. I see her pandering
I guess I cannot understand why people allow this. I can see voters allowing some pandering, ect. as part of campaigning. Especially when it’s done by someone good at it.
But, Hillary is not. She panders and fakes like a sledgehammer. No subltey just out there.
It’s like she never comes out with any policy and just says she is working on it. But, she seems to fool people. After the AFL CIO debate the pundits were gushing as usual and Matthews said she had the best health careplan. what? she has no plan. So the media is as obvious in it’s pandering to Hillary as Hillary is to people. But, there seems to be a more obvious tone when she is talking to a black audience. Like her crack at one debate at Howard U. That was not a joke so much as a calculated pander to black women.
I don’t get it.
We went through 2000 where the people and the press laid down and allowed Bush a free pass and they seemed blinded to him.
After 6 years you would think both would be wiser. And yet it’s happening again.