The Council Member declared that the City Council must serve in the interests of all of the people of this city, many who are in need of affordable housing. Many of her colleagues joined her and changed their initial votes and the College Point rezoning sponsored by Council Member Avella was soundly defeated.
The Council Member declared that the City Council must serve in the interests of all of the people of this city, many who are in need of affordable housing. Many of her colleagues joined her and changed their initial votes and the College Point rezoning sponsored by Council Member Avella was soundly defeated.
Council member Avella has spent a lot of time in Harlem denouncing both Council member Dickens and the 125th street rezoning and it seems turnabout is fair play.
Hey Avella learn to respect your colleagues, their respective districts, and their respective projects and perhaps they will respect you.
Look, I really don't mind at all if Obama wins the nomination, and if he does I would hope he wins big too the general election and all. What's tiring is the talk that he's different, especially the hyperbolic messianic crap that his supporters shamelessly use to hype Obama. The pretending that he's light and Clinton is dark while his votes are not any different than Clinton's; the pretending that he is a progressive leader in the Senate when he is not; the pretending that he's the oracle of change when he's merely mouthing words that David Axelrod recycled from Deval Patrick's winning MA gubernatorial campaign in 2006; and the pretending that he's some sort of vessel that shares your personal values which if its true means your soul succumbs to good marketing.
Look, I really don't mind at all if Obama wins the nomination, and if he does I would hope he wins big too the general election and all. What's tiring is the talk that he's different, especially the hyperbolic messianic crap that his supporters shamelessly use to hype Obama. The pretending that he's light and Clinton is dark while his votes are not any different than Clinton's; the pretending that he is a progressive leader in the Senate when he is not; the pretending that he's the oracle of change when he's merely mouthing words that David Axelrod recycled from Deval Patrick's winning MA gubernatorial campaign in 2006; and the pretending that he's some sort of vessel that shares your personal values which if its true means your soul succumbs to good marketing.
Support the guy, vote for him, argue about his electability. Just don't try to fake others, whom don't support him currently, into believing that he exemplifies a transcendent change. He isn’t. He is a part of the ‘system” and the change if any he brings will come from within it, so don’t delude yourselves. If he is the Democratic nominee we will all rally to him but the Childrens Defense Fund he is not.
First of all almost 28 million people have voted in one of the 41 primaries or caucuses held thus far and the difference in the popular vote between Obama and Clinton is less than one tenth of one percent (less than 35,000 out of 28,000,000 cast). So the people are clearly split between the two.
First of all almost 28 million people have voted in one of the 41 primaries or caucuses held thus far and the difference in the popular vote between Obama and Clinton is less than one tenth of one percent (less than 35,000 out of 28,000,000 cast). So the people are clearly split between the two.
Second, unless I am mistaken this is a race to be the “Democratic” nominee for the Presidency of the United States. And in almost every contest where the primaries were open to just Democrats - Barack Obama has lost every one – New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Florida, etc.(and each by over 5 points). The only places where he wins are those states where Independents and Republicans carry him to victory.
I do not doubt that we will need more than just Democrats to win in November but Independents and Republicans should not pick the Democratic Nominee - nor do I as A Democrat think I should choose the Republican nominee. Those are not my parties and I should not make that choice for them and neither should Republicans and Independents make that choice for me or you my fellow Democrats.
That is an insult to real Democrats who have stayed with this party year after year, and thru every up and down. Let the “will of the Democrats” prevail and the unpledged Democrats will and should choose Hillary Clinton by a mile because she leads amongst Democratic voters by a very large margin.
And lets be clear about two more things- one, Republicans are voting for Obama during the primaries with ulterior motives, they want to stop Hillary Clinton it is not because they are inspired. And two if the Republicans want Obama so bad perhaps it is because they believe he will be the candidate that they can beat in November. I cannot remember the last time something the Republicans wanted for the Democrats was actually good for the Democrats.
And if we let them do it we will get defeated in November. Go to Google and type in “republicans voting for Obama” and read some of the thousands of stories and websites where Republicans clearly lay out their case to vote for Obama in the primary to defeat Hillary and then say they will “go home” to McCain in November. I am not making this stuff up go and see it for yourself.
Who’s really picking our Democratic nominee? If it’s the Democratic youth or African American voters, I’m okay with that. That’s fair. If it’s Republicans or Independents, I’m not – I made a choice to be a Democrat and so did many of you and it meant something to me as I hope it did to you.
There are two real reasons why I will not be voting for Barack Obama.
1. Let’s be clear experience and a solid record matter.
His lack of experience is transparent and troubling. I rarely agree with the New York Times but on this point they are correct. Most Americans just met him in 2004 at the DNC national convention, he does not have a deep enough record and it is not a coincidence that Republicans from Tucker Carlson to Joe Scarborough think “he is the best candidate the Democrats have had in 30 years.” We as Democrats should all be careful when we take advice from wolves.
There are two real reasons why I will not be voting for Barack Obama.
1. Let’s be clear experience and a solid record matter.
His lack of experience is transparent and troubling. I rarely agree with the New York Times but on this point they are correct. Most Americans just met him in 2004 at the DNC national convention, he does not have a deep enough record and it is not a coincidence that Republicans from Tucker Carlson to Joe Scarborough think “he is the best candidate the Democrats have had in 30 years.” We as Democrats should all be careful when we take advice from wolves.
Hillary Clinton, compared to Obama, is a stronger, more experienced leader with superior ideas for solving the problems facing America and advancing human rights, including the welfare of African-Americans.
2. I don't like talking loud and saying nothing.
Barack Obama his a exceptional orator, who makes sentences sound like beautiful music. Now that I have said it, what exactly is he saying, not that much to me. “New Politics” and “bringing Democrats and Republicans together” sounds great but his record and his rhetoric do not match. Not because he may not believe what he is saying, but that he has not done it consistently over an extended period and has no track record of accomplishing it.
Barack Obama has never won a street fight – he lost the first real contested election he was ever in versus Congressman Bobby Rush… badly. And in 2004 he never had a real opponent and coasted to victory in the Illinois Senate race. He is not battle tested and the Rezco incident is just the tip of the iceberg, the Republicans and the media are waiting if he were to be the Democratic nominee to tear him down before the General Election.
In summary I believe that solid leadership experience is important, and if America is to get back on track after eight years of disaster under George Bush and Dick Cheney, and if the welfare of African-Americans is to be advanced, then Hillary Clinton is the only logical choice for US president this time around. The economic success and African-American advancements of the Bill Clinton presidency speak for themselves; and Hillary's leadership in the White House then was commendable.
The Clinton record is clear:
More African-American appointments throughout the whole range of appointments in the administration and when you have so many people in important positions throughout government dealing with a broad range of issues that impacted the ability of African-Americans to achieve in almost every area it leads to many success including:
African-American unemployment went down
African-American poverty rates went down
African-American homeownership went up
African-American business ownership grew
On February 5th don’t believe the hope or the hype. I will be standing up and voting for Hillary Clinton and I hope that you will join me.
If Elizabeth Edwards wants to run for President (since she seems the tougher of the two) then she should. It seems more folks are listening to her and have more empathy for her, due to her health condition. America seems to like her better and listen to more of her views than her husbands.
If Elizabeth Edwards wants to run for President (since she seems the tougher of the two) then she should. It seems more folks are listening to her and have more empathy for her, due to her health condition. America seems to like her better and listen to more of her views than her husbands.
But I think it’s sad that every time Senator Clinton steps out of her front door she gets attacked by John Edwards’ wife – can’t he defend himself, can’t he state his opinion about issues without getting his wife to validate his every point and opinion. Perhaps it’s because his campaign has caught so little traction or attention that he chooses to use his wife (whom America still wants to hear from) to attack the so-called frontrunner.
I like you Elizabeth Edwards but enough is enough. If your husband can neither stand on his own nor find other surrogates besides his wife to do so – he should just sit down and be quiet.
It was a symbol of the changing politics in the Black political world in New York State. Along with Mayor Davis down went the Chair of the Mt. Vernon Democratic Party Serapher Conn-Halevi who was running for a County Legislator seat and was painted as too close to Davis and thus untrustworthy to hold that office. Mayor Davis has been the chief executive in Mt. Vernon since 1995 and is a symbol of the Civil Rights establishment of politicians of old. This is a real blow to Rev. Franklin Richardson, Rev. Al Sharpton, County Chair Reggie Lafayette and others who have been supporters of Davis for many years.
It was a symbol of the changing politics in the Black political world in New York State. Along with Mayor Davis down went the Chair of the Mt. Vernon Democratic Party Serapher Conn-Halevi who was running for a County Legislator seat and was painted as too close to Davis and thus untrustworthy to hold that office. Mayor Davis has been the chief executive in Mt. Vernon since 1995 and is a symbol of the Civil Rights establishment of politicians of old. This is a real blow to Rev. Franklin Richardson, Rev. Al Sharpton, County Chair Reggie Lafayette and others who have been supporters of Davis for many years.
The politics of the past will no longer hold – campaigns are getting more and more professionally run and technically complicated – those who do not learn that lesson are doomed to lose.
And so is any member of the Council of color that did not speak up against this new revision to the city’s campaign finance law in the democratic caucus meetings (you know who you are).
This law is wrong for the very basic fact that it is local government trying to determine which political speech ought to be heard the loudest and that is emphatically wrong.
But there are other reasons:
1. Limiting contributions for some while doing nothing the decrease the very clear advantage of wealthy candidates like Mayor Bloomberg is unconscionable;
And so is any member of the Council of color that did not speak up against this new revision to the city’s campaign finance law in the democratic caucus meetings (you know who you are).
This law is wrong for the very basic fact that it is local government trying to determine which political speech ought to be heard the loudest and that is emphatically wrong.
But there are other reasons:
1. Limiting contributions for some while doing nothing the decrease the very clear advantage of wealthy candidates like Mayor Bloomberg is unconscionable;
2. The law creates a protected class that needs little protection when it comes to elections: labor unions. They are some of the most powerful folks in the process as is - with their already considerable advantage in manpower, get-out-the-vote efforts and endorsements
3. This law not only limits who and how much can be contributed but it also takes money away from candidates. As the bill no longer holds exempt the costs related to compliance and fundraising that were exempt just last election cycle. This will costs candidates who can least afford it upwards of $20,000 that were once used to talk directly with voters and field activities will now have to be saved to pay lawyers as they maneuver through the complex Campaign Finance Board that is also a creation of law by the Council. (How many candidates do you know have $20,000 lying around after an election to pay for lawyers and compliance?)
This law is violation of speech but it also hurts candidates of color in the city disproportionately. Look at the campaign filings of the candidates of color in NYC and see who were the contributors who wrote checks of $2,000 or more (City Council only) - they are the labor unions, the lobbyists and so-called “people who do business with the city”. (Which could be a daycare provider).
Most people who live in communities of color in this city cannot afford to write their city council candidate of choice a $2,000+ check and pay their bills at the same time. This may not be an issue for those who live on the Upper East Side or West Side of Manhattan, but it is for those who live in Harlem and the South Bronx and in Central Brooklyn.
If the unions are the only remaining source for the larger contributions for candidates of color in NYC - how likely will it be that they can afford to take positions that may hurt the unions, even if they are good for the city? (I would say unlikely at best).
One of the few folks sticking their neck out there to oppose this unfair law is lobbyist Sid Davidoff who said "This is one of the more serious infringements on civil rights that I've been involved with in the city. It is a serious issue. It involves thousands and thousands of people in the city and their families in terms of their ability to be involved in the electoral process.” He is right and we should stand with him. And so should candidates of color, elected officials of color and communities of color, because what is true in Chelsea is not necessarily true in Harlem.
Why was this moment so important to me and so many others? Because in 1984 and 1988 a man stepped up to run for President that changed my life and changed the life of almost every person I know and made a career path possible for me and so many others. That man was the Rev. Jesse Jackson and what he did was open the door of opportunity to the many who came before me and like me, wanted to make a life of public service, of civic engagement and electoral politics. Let me explain further – although there were many Black politicians before and after Rev. Jackson’s runs for president, there were very few full time Black political operatives. Rev. Jackson by empowering the likes of Ron Brown, Minyon Moore, Donna Brazille, Bill Lynch and many others across this country made a career path possible for young Black talented folks to choose politics as not only their passion but their career path.
To me that’s why the speech and the announcement was so important. I sat there and listened and looked at my child and wondered what Obama’s presence in this race would mean for her generation, what door would it open and how might it change her life as Rev. Jackson did mine. I wondered how this speech on that stage would open doors that now seem closed and unknown to both her and I and how that mind change the possible trajectory of her life. I wondered.
In the end she ended up truly enjoying the speech and was glad that I had forced her to watch the speech and it gave us something to talk about sincerely for a few days. And it allowed me to share with her in a real way some of the many experiences and important lessons that I had learned in my life. I was glad we experienced that together and although I am pretty sure that Obama will not be the candidate for the Democrats in 2008 because experience trumps potential every time – I am not sure it matters. The moment mattered and in that moment I saw her future and perhaps the future of us all.