Hillary Clinton, the Great Panderer

[03EBZ06]

Hillary Clinton Is Just Insulting

Opinion Editorial by Walter E. Williams - Sep 14, 2007 23 reader ratings




“I don’t feel no ways tired. I come too far from where I started from. Nobody told me that the road would be easy. I don’t believe He brought me this far,” drawled presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton, mimicking black voice to a black audience, at the First Baptist Church of Selma, Alabama.

I’m wondering if Mrs. Clinton visits an Indian reservation she might cozy up to them saying, “How! Me not tired. Me come heap long way. Road mighty rough. Sky Spirit no bring me this far.”

Or, seeking the Asian vote she might say, “I no wray tired. Come too far I started flum. Road berry clooked. Number one Dragon King take me far.”

The occasion of Mrs. Clinton’s speech was the 42nd anniversary of Bloody Sunday, on March 7, 1965, when 600 civil rights marchers were attacked by police with billy clubs, cattle prods and tear gas, one of the high points in the black civil rights struggle.

Commemorating a key point in American history is one thing, but a white person mimicking black dialect is demeaning and insulting. And, if it buys her votes from those in attendance, not much flattering can be said about them.

Mrs. Clinton later explained her drawl, around black audiences, to a meeting of the National Association of Black Journalists, “I lived all those years in Arkansas, and, you know, I’m in this interracial marriage.” The interracial marriage bit has to do with the frequent reference to former President Clinton, by the Congressional Black Caucus and others, as the “first black president.”

Mrs. Clinton is not alone in demeaning talk to black people; she’s in good company with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who talk of “going from the outhouse to the White House” and “from disgrace to amazing grace” and other such nonsense. Neither Clinton nor Revs. Sharpton and Jackson address white audiences in that manner.

Before a predominantly black audience, during his 2004 presidential bid, Sen. John Kerry said, in reference to so many blacks in prison, “That’s unacceptable, but it’s not their fault.” I doubt whether Kerry would have told a white audience that jailed white people were faultless. Kerry probably holds whites responsible for their criminal behavior.

In 2004, NAACP President Kweisi Mfume said of President George Bush, “We have a president that’s prepared to take us back to the days of Jim Crow segregation and dominance.” During the 2000 presidential campaign, Rev. Jesse Jackson warned black audiences by telling them that a Bush win would turn the civil rights clock back to the days of Jim Crow.

Now that Bush’s two-term presidency is near its end, why wouldn’t someone ask Jesse and Kweisi about the accuracy of their predictions?

Suppose some demagogue in 2000 told Jewish Americans that a Bush presidency would mean concentration camps, or told Japanese-Americans that his presidency would mean internment? Do you think such pronouncements would have been welcomed and applauded? I’m sure that had someone made such a stupid prediction to Jewish and Japanese-Americans, they would have had ridicule and scorn heaped upon them.

What does it say about blacks who can be taken in by pandering, alarmist nonsense from both whites and blacks as a means to get their votes? As a black man, I don’t find the most obvious answer very flattering.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. He has authored more than 150 publications, including many in scholarly journals, and has frequently given expert testimony before Congressional committees on public policy issues ranging from labor policy to taxation and spending.

http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns...-insulting.php

[BrAinPaiNt]

Nothing shocks me with that woman.

[vta]

Too bad many won't hear what this guy is saying. He makes too much sense.

[silverbear]

Apparently, Walter E. Williams thinks that Dubya as President has been good for black people... it's hard to take anything else he says seriously, when you realize that...

Now in this case, his basic premise is true-- Hillary will pander to anybody, at any time, and mimicking the way she thinks black people talk IS really insulting to them... he just takes his criticisms a little far afield, in the process diluting the strength of the truth he's speaking...

Williams is writing not as a black man, but as a conservative apologist for the neocon movement...

[iceberg]

Originally Posted by silverbear

Apparently, Walter E. Williams thinks that Dubya as President has been good for black people... it's hard to take anything else he says seriously, when you realize that...

Now in this case, his basic premise is true-- Hillary will pander to anybody, at any time, and mimicking the way she thinks black people talk IS really insulting to them... he just takes his criticisms a little far afield, in the process diluting the strength of the truth he's speaking...

Williams is writing not as a black man, but as a conservative apologist for the neocon movement...

or maybe, just maybe, that's how he really feels and you just don't like it.

if he's a black man he's writing as a black man same as i'm writing as a fat white boy. i know of no other way.

[silverbear]

Originally Posted by iceberg

or maybe, just maybe, that's how he really feels and you just don't like it.

Oh, I don't doubt that's how he feels, but no, I don't mind if he rips Hillary a new one... I may loathe her even more than you do... but I'm right about his agenda for writing it, it's not because he's a black man, but rather because he's a Bush shill... the piece is an attack on Hillary Clinton, and is politically motivated rather than sociologically motivated...

[iceberg]

Originally Posted by silverbear

Oh, I don't doubt that's how he feels, but no, I don't mind if he rips Hillary a new one... I may loathe her even more than you do... but I'm right about his agenda for writing it, it's not because he's a black man, but rather because he's a Bush shill... the piece is an attack on Hillary Clinton, and is politically motivated rather than sociologically motivated...

or maybe he just feels the way bush does on something.

if you believe how i do on something, are you a iceberg shill? if you back me up on how i do something, you a lackey?

if bush paid him to do this to help himself you'd have a point. but if the man wrote this on his own terms and conditions, he's no mans "shill" but speaking his mind the same we all wish to. nothing more. nothing less.

we're so quick to discredit people who back up those we don't like becuase we don't like who they're backing up. why? i don't get that.

maybe the man just feels that way cause he does and whether bush ever knows or not what the man said or wrote doesn't matter, he'd still feel the same.

shill or man speaking his mind like the rest of us?

[silverbear]

Originally Posted by iceberg

or maybe he just feels the way bush does on something.

The way he included the comments on Dubya, when they were really irrelevant to the subject, tells me what his agenda was...

if you believe how i do on something, are you a iceberg shill? if you back me up on how i do something, you a lackey?

I've been an "iceberg shill" for a long time now, but reject the lackey charges...

if bush paid him to do this to help himself you'd have a point.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time the neocons paid off a black commentator, would it?? But I don't have any evidence that happened here...

However, I don't think getting paid is essential to being a "shill"... basically, the definition of shill is an accomplice of a hawker or swindler who acts like an enthusiastic customer of the hawker or swindler, to induce others to buy the goods being sold...

shill or man speaking his mind like the rest of us?

Shill, because Dubya had nothing to do with his basic premise, that premise being that it is insulting to black people to have a Hillary Clinton pander to them by mimicking what she perceives as their way of talking... in that context, the utterances of Kweisi Mfume and Jesse Jackson about Dubya and "Jim Crow" are a nonsequitur, one aimed at defending Dubya...

Insertion of that nonsequitur instantly changes this piece from a "black thing" to a "Republican thing"...

[iceberg]

Originally Posted by silverbear

The way he included the comments on Dubya, when they were really irrelevant to the subject, tells me what his agenda was...

I've been an "iceberg shill" for a long time now, but reject the lackey charges...

Well, it wouldn't be the first time the neocons paid off a black commentator, would it?? But I don't have any evidence that happened here...

However, I don't think getting paid is essential to being a "shill"... basically, the definition of shill is an accomplice of a hawker or swindler who acts like an enthusiastic customer of the hawker or swindler, to induce others to buy the goods being sold...

[View Full Quote]Shill, because Dubya had nothing to do with his basic premise, that premise being that it is insulting to black people to have a Hillary Clinton pander to them by mimicking what she perceives as their way of talking... in that context, the utterances of Kweisi Mfume and Jesse Jackson about Dubya and "Jim Crow" are a nonsequitur, one aimed at defending Dubya...

Insertion of that nonsequitur instantly changes this piece from a "black thing" to a "Republican thing"...

fair enough. the questions i ask are to get your mindset on something. that's all so thank you for responding as such.

has a black commentator been paid off before?

probably. so has a jewish, chinese, arabic, incest ridden inbred wonder twins, male, gay, lesbian, poodle loving (i hate this crowd, the poodle is a useless dog man!) people.

his being black - what does it have to do with your point overall? i tend to take people at face value and not look for the obvious to dictate what could be their direction.

[Ben_n_austin]

Originally Posted by silverbear

The way he included the comments on Dubya, when they were really irrelevant to the subject, tells me what his agenda was...



I've been an "iceberg shill" for a long time now, but reject the lackey charges...



Well, it wouldn't be the first time the neocons paid off a black commentator, would it?? But I don't have any evidence that happened here...

However, I don't think getting paid is essential to being a "shill"... basically, the definition of shill is an accomplice of a hawker or swindler who acts like an enthusiastic customer of the hawker or swindler, to induce others to buy the goods being sold...



[View Full Quote]Shill, because Dubya had nothing to do with his basic premise, that premise being that it is insulting to black people to have a Hillary Clinton pander to them by mimicking what she perceives as their way of talking... in that context, the utterances of Kweisi Mfume and Jesse Jackson about Dubya and "Jim Crow" are a nonsequitur, one aimed at defending Dubya...

Insertion of that nonsequitur instantly changes this piece from a "black thing" to a "Republican thing"...

You can see that there aren't very many philosophy people in here, but you've just schooled 'ol Iceberg in what they call logic... and you've demnostrated how an irrelevant premise will very much weaken the conclusion.

This article, or its argument, is garbage because it includes Bush as a premise when he has nothing to do with the conclusion of Hillary pandering.

This argument is very relatively weak.

Logic 101 - class dismissed. Agenda sniffed.

[arglebargle]

Originally Posted by silverbear

Oh, I don't doubt that's how he feels, but no, I don't mind if he rips Hillary a new one... I may loathe her even more than you do... but I'm right about his agenda for writing it, it's not because he's a black man, but rather because he's a Bush shill... the piece is an attack on Hillary Clinton, and is politically motivated rather than sociologically motivated...

Found an archive of his columns. He really is a Neocon shill, or perhaps a 'True Believer'. I had run across some BS of his before, thought I recognized his name. Here's the link, you can check out the party line persona.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams1.asp

[Ben_n_austin]

Originally Posted by arglebargle

Found an archive of his columns. He really is a Neocon shill, or perhaps a 'True Believer'. I had run across some BS of his before, thought I recognized his name. Here's the link, you can check out the party line persona.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams1.asp

As I was reiterating what Bear had said.... how does he even have any academic credentials to obtain a job as a writer?

Terrible source, 03, flat out terrible source.

[silverbear]

Originally Posted by iceberg

fair enough. the questions i ask are to get your mindset on something. that's all so thank you for responding as such.

has a black commentator been paid off before?

I was referring specifically to Armstrong something or other, can't recall his name right now, but I'll bet you know who I'm referring to...

his being black - what does it have to do with your point overall?

It was a parenthetic aside, basically, that there are precious few black commentators who are conservatives, let alone Republicans, and that the Bush administration has in the past gone so far as to subsidize at least one of those few, in an effort to woo black voters...

[silverbear]

Originally Posted by AnyGivenSunday

You can see that there aren't very many philosophy people in here, but you've just schooled 'ol Iceberg in what they call logic... and you've demnostrated how an irrelevant premise will very much weaken the conclusion.

This article, or its argument, is garbage because it includes Bush as a premise when he has nothing to do with the conclusion of Hillary pandering.

This argument is very relatively weak.

Logic 101 - class dismissed. Agenda sniffed.

For the record, ice is one of my favorite antagonists for arguing politics, and I think he's a hell of a guy... we started out very much in each other's faces, wound up with a grudging mutual admiration... I believe him to be principled, intelligent and quite honest...

And wrong, a lot of the time...

[silverbear]

Originally Posted by AnyGivenSunday

As I was reiterating what Bear had said.... how does he even have any academic credentials to obtain a job as a writer?

Terrible source, 03, flat out terrible source.

These days, most any neocon who wants a forum in the media can find financial backing... doesn't matter if the guy (or gal) makes any sense at all...