Recent events on the Democratic side of the 2008 presidential race have got me wondering whether there could be a racial split. Comments coming from the Clinton campaign concerning Barak Obama and Martin Luther Kind Jr. and John F. Kennedy have got many black Democrats wondering if a man once dubbed America’s first black president and his candidate wife had crossed the racial line in their attacks on Obama.
On the campaign trail Senator Clinton gave credit for civil rights legislation to Lydon Johnson instead of John F. Kennedy. Many blacks view Kennedy as their champion for pushing for civil rights that led to the legislation passing after he was assassinated. Clinton also used Martin Luther King, Jr. as and example in how it is not enough to talk about change, what is important is making the change happen. Clinton’s comments came while she was hammering home the fact that talk, what she says Obama does well, is nothing compared to actual action and success. However Clinton meant it, it didn’t sit well with black voters polled in South Carolina and even her home state of New York.
On the eve of the New Hampshire primary former President Bill Clinton added to the fire by calling into question Obama’s anti war stance, calling it a “fairy tale.” Clinton’s comments were taken out of context by the black community to mean he thought Obama’s candidacy as a black man was a fairy tale. In all fairness that is quite a stretch. Clinton was talking about, and describing Obama’s votes in the Senate regarding the Iraq war and how Obama has been presenting them. Clinton merely said that Obama’s record was no different that his wife’s. However the Clinton’s meant their comments, they have certainly have been taken in a very negative way by the black community, fairly or not.
Regardless of what was said and what was meant a problem has certainly arisen. If Clinton continues to aggressively attack Obama will the black community view it as unnecessary attacks against a black candidate or will it be viewed the way it should be, hard, intense presidential politics. Only time will tell but right now a split in the Democratic party on racial lines could be disastrous for the party.
Paul Krugman: Europe, The Comeback Continent
Paul Krugman, The New York Times, January 11, 2008
Today I’d like to talk about a much-derided contender making a surprising comeback, a comeback that calls into question much of the conventional wisdom of American politics. No, I’m not talking about a politician. I’m talking about an economy – specifically, the European economy, which many Americans assume is tired and spent but has lately been showing surprising vitality.
Why should Americans care about Europe’s economy? Well, for one thing, it’s big. The G.D.P. of the European Union is roughly comparable to that of the United States; the euro is almost as important a global currency as the dollar; and the governance of the world financial system is, for practical purposes, equally shared by the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve.
But there’s another thing: it’s important to get the facts about Europe’s economy right because the alleged woes of that economy play an important role in American political discourse, usually as an excuse for the insecurities and injustices of our own society.
For example, does Hillary Clinton have a plan to cover the millions of Americans who lack health insurance? “She takes her inspiration from European bureaucracies,” sneers Mitt Romney.
Or are top U.S. executives grossly overpaid? According to a Times report, Michael Jensen, a professor emeritus at Harvard’s Graduate School of Business whose theories helped pave the way for gigantic paychecks, considers executive excess “an acceptable price to pay for an American economy that he believes has outstripped Japan and Europe in growth and prosperity.”
In fact, however, tales of a moribund Europe are greatly exaggerated.
Read More Here