Black loyalty to the Clintons is misplaced


  The image “” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

The inevitability of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy becomes more apparent with each passing day, but the questions occur: what has she done for us in the past and what has she done for us lately?

By us, I am primarily referring to black folks and progressives of any race who care about global human rights and economic justice.  There are those that would argue that we must consider her record apart from her husband’s.  You can’t.  Her candidacy cannot be separated from him because if not for him, her candidacy would not be possible.  His administration was as much hers as his and she played an integral role in it. Therefore, it is logical to judge her on the basis of the shared record.  After all, they campaigned on a “two for one” deal, in 1992.  They won’t be doing so this time round, but the two for one deal is still very much in effect.


The Clinton Foundation’s AIDS initiative has made some great strides in providing the anti-retroviral treatment that millions of Africans are in need of, the problem is the millions his Administration allowed to die, and the more than 40 million people of color in jeopardy of death, because of his criminal collusion with the phamaceutical companies which have poured millions into federal campaigns and lobbying Capitol Hill. Clinton’s AIDS initiative is significant and groundbreaking, but it doesn’t make Mr. or Mrs. Clinton humanitarians because it is a problem made worse by their collective negligence.

The criminal syndicate that controls international trade, the World Trade Organization, has had long standing rules in place to allow for the emergency reproduction of generic drugs for health epidemics.  Instead, multi-national phamaceutical corporations, most of whom stumbled on retro-viral drugs they had no hand in creating, but secured the rights to manufacture, pressured our trade officials to hamper the ability of companies and governments in the developing world of Africa and Asia to manufacture generic equivalents of proven Anti-retroviral drugs that save lives in wealthy Europe and the United States.

President Clinton and his Vice President lobbied the South African government after it passed a law to allow the production of generic AIDS drugs to halt its efforts to produce life saving medicine. South Africa is now being ravaged by the most severe HIV/AIDS epidemic in southern Africa.  It is the wealthiest nation in the hemisphere that could have provided a model for its neighbors in stemming this crisis.  Instead, its leaders, Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki, his successor as South Africa’s President, buried their heads in the sand, refused to acknowledge the truth, and listened to their American counterparts who did not have their interests, or those of the black diaspora in mind when they allowed a epidemic to spiral into a pandemic.

By any empirical analysis, the Clinton Administration conspired with phamaceutical companies to commit genocide against people of color to boost their bottom lines. In an era in which nobody in western Europe is paying a damn cent to receive anti-retroviral therapy, why are people of color in Africa and Asia being denied access to cheap, generic anti-retrovirals?  Where the hell was Hillary during this process when white men in a smoke-filled room decided how many colored folks would be consigned to death by their greed?

I understand that she traveled the world speaking to non-governmental organizations about women’s rights, a cause I certainly support as the son of a single mama, but what in the hell did she actually do about the single greatest threat to survival in the developing world outside of poverty and war?  Did she agree with this genocidal policy, and if not, what did she do to stop it? These are the questions she needs to answer, rather than the tired-ass question of why she stayed married to a serial philanderer.


Africa Action breaks down Clinton’s actions during the 1994 Rwandan crisis, “During President Bill Clinton’s trip to Africa in 1998, he stopped in Kigali, Rwanda, to deliver an apology for not having done “as much as we could” to stop the genocide in 1994. He announced to an audience at the Kigali airport, [A]ll over the world there were people like me sitting in offices, day after day after day, who did not fully appreciate the depth and the speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror.” In fact, there exists a great deal of evidence to suggest that detailed information on the scope of the genocide was indeed available to the U.S. – both before and during the massacres in Rwanda.”

“Reports suggesting a high likelihood of massive ethnic violence had been available even during the early 1990s. In January 1994, U.S. intelligence analysts had predicted that in case of renewed conflict in Rwanda, “the worst-case scenario would involve one half million people dying.” In the final analysis, even these dire forecasts proved to be conservative.”

“President Clinton did not devote a single meeting of his senior foreign policy advisors to devising U.S. options for action on the crisis. Some low- and mid-level officials, recognizing the lack of top-level support for larger engagement, sought more moderate tactics to lessen the death toll. One suggestion was to jam the hateful radio transmissions, which were inciting the general population to take up arms. This proposal was rejected as a costly endeavor that would have too little effect.”

“On June 7, 1994, President Clinton stated that humanitarian aid was all that the U.S. could provide to Rwanda, in light of other American military commitments in Europe and Asia. Later that month, the President defended the U.S. response on Rwanda to Members of Congress who requested troop deployment. In July 1994, President Clinton finally announced the provision of humanitarian relief for Rwanda, and requested emergency funding from Congress for this effort. By this time, the genocide had essentially been completed, and some 800,000 Rwandan lives had been lost.”

According to Africa Action “The ongoing genocide in Darfur marks the first genocide of the 21st century, and the first the world has faced in Africa since Rwanda in 1994. It began in early 2003, when the government of Sudan and its proxy militias (known as the Janjaweed) launched a campaign of genocide against three African communities – the Fur, the Zaghawa and the Massaleit – in Darfur, because rebel groups from that region had risen up to challenge Khartoum’s authoritarian rule and their own marginalization.”“Three and a half years later, the genocide in Darfur continues today. Some 500,000 lives have been lost,with millions more Darfuris left homeless and facing a growing man-made humanitarian crisis, which forms part of this genocide.”  Mrs. Clinton has a moral obligation to do what she and her husband didn’t do in Rwanda: push for and secure Senate legislation to compel Bush Administration action to end this crisis.  It has yet to happen.


Randall Robinson, former executive director of TransAfrica and the author of “The Debt” has written, ” at least four friendly Caribbean democracies-St. Lucia, Dominica, St. Vincent, and Grenada-may collapse because of (Bill)Clinton’s efforts to transfer European markets for Caribbean bananas to Chiquita Brands’ Carl H. Lindner, a Lincoln Bedroom alumnus and large campaign contributor. Clinton threatened to impose 100 percent tariffs on European wine,cheese, and other exports unless the Europeans cease reserving a small slice of their markets for their former colonies in the Caribbean, Africa and the Pacific. In imperiling the economy of four tiny Caribbean democracies, Clinton made them more vulnerable to drug trafficking, although the U.S. exports no bananas and no U.S. jobs are at stake.” What will eight more years of the Clintons do to the people of the Caribbenan?


The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Democratic Staff of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee have found serious and profound irregularities in the manner in which the states of Florida and Ohio conducted federal elections in 2000 and 2004. 

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recommended, “The U.S. Department of Justice should immediately initiate the litigation process against Florida state officials, whose list maintenance activities during the November 2000 presidential election discriminated against people of color in violation of federal law or resulted in the denial of people of color to have equal access to the political process. The process should focus on at least the following factors: the rate African Americans appear on the purge list; the rate that African Americans appear on this list in error; the fact that the state law places the burden on the voter to prove his or her innocence to be permitted to vote; and the awareness of state officials that names would be placed on these lists in error. Appropriate enforcement action should be initiated to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended.”

The Conyers report of the House Judiciary Democrats states, “We have found numerous election irregularites in the Ohio presidential election , which resulted in a significant disenfranchisement of voters.Cumulatively, these irregularities, which effected hundreds of thousands of votes and voters in Ohio, raise grave doubts about weather it can be said that the Ohio electors selected on December 13,2004, were chosen in manner conforming to Ohio law, let alone Federal requirements and constitutional standards.”

There is a Bicameral procedure for challenging disputed electoral votes. The electoral votes of Florida were never challenged because not one Senator stepped forward to set the process in motion. Mrs. Clinton was a newly elected Senator at the time and sat on her hands. She did the same in 2004 after Barbara Boxer, a Senator from California signed off on a challenge to Ohio’s electoral votes.  The manly man from Massachussetts, on whose behalf she was acting couldn’t be bothered to challenge the Ohio electoral vote.  75 senators voted on accepting Ohio’ s electoral vote.  Only one voted to sustain the challenge: Barbara Boxer.  Mrs. Clinton put the nail in Kerry’s coffin and voted to accept the electoral votes from Ohio. In effect, she put her seal of approval on illegal disenfranchisement. 

Because of the foregoing issues, I can think of no reason she deserves the support of the vast majority of black voters.  Brainwashed by the so-called “mainstream media,” this will remain unanswered and not contemplated by the majority of black and progressive voters. It doesn’t matter what I say. Presidential campaigns ain’t won or lost on the basis of truth. But like the trained monkeys the Republicans think we are, we gon’ trot right out and vote for her, like we ain’t got no kinda sense.  We will demand nothing for our vote and receive just that for it. 

If these two want a second turn at steering the ship of state, they must be made to pay heavily for it.  Going to the next Democratic National Convention with enough delegates to force her to adhere to a more progressive agenda is a good first step.


6 thoughts on “Black loyalty to the Clintons is misplaced

  1. Rikyrah

    Thanks for this column. I’m not going to vote for Hillary in the primary system, and I’ve decided to vote Green Party if she actually gets the nomination. I will work harder to keep the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. But, I’ll not vote for Hillary Clinton.

  2. Rikyrah

    Skeptical Brotha,

    Call me skeptical,but don’t you think all these attacks (especially by the likes of James Carville) of Howard Dean is about moving him out and moving a DLC-type in, so that they can squash what Dean began with the 50-state strategy?

    Am I delusional, or are my suspicions correct?

  3. Rikyrah,
    Yes to your second question. Your suspicions are correct. It is your first comment that bothers me. The Green Party is an ideological cul de sac that ends in defeat. I believe in everything they stand for, the reality is that they marginalize Democratic candidates and allow Republicans to win. Nader’s candidacy, and GOP felon vote purges allowed Bush to steal the White House. If we put our energies into forcing establishment Democrats like Hillary to do right, I think we’ll have success.

  4. Rikyrah

    Skeptical Brotha,

    How can we put our energies into forcing DLC’ers to do right, when they don’t have ‘ the people’s interests’ in mind in the first place? I dunno. I could never vote for McCain or Guiliani, or any GOPer that could be amenable to the right wing and could make it out of their primary system. I thought Kerry was a loser, but I hated Bush. I honestly don’t like Hillary Clinton. …at all.

  5. Rikyrah,

    Sweetheart, we don’t have any other real options. Hillary is all there is and we must accept that and move forward and lobby her vigourously to do the right thing with respect to the African Diaspora. There are many ways to embarass the hell out of these people so they will do right. We must never give up or give in to the Corporate pressure to conform like they do. We supposedly live in a democracy. Let’s test that out. Together, we can make this Country work.

    Keep the faith, Baby

    Skeptical Brotha

  6. Patrice


    I am so with you on the Hillary thing. I will have a very hard time voting for her. I guess I will just have to work for whoever the opposition is in the primary. I don’t understand how we can continue to put people in office who don’t have our best interest at heart. Perhaps I will come around if she is the nominee– I did with with Kerry.

Comments are closed.