Why Obama Beat Clinton
Obama seems like an appealing alternative to confrontational politics. He is not an insider in these old-boys clubs. He is best suited to open more dialogue with foreign leaders and get better results with less bloodshed.
A Black man just won a caucus in Iowa.
Not the Motown Caucus, not the Harlem Caucus, not the Lower Ninth Ward Caucus. I’m talking The Iowa Caucus.
Oddly enough Clinton is supposed to be a done deal by now. Instead, almost a year after she formed that exploratory committee on January 20, 2007, it seems that she may be done for.
Confiscating Senator Barack Obama’s grade school essays and having former NBA star and current mega-business mogul Magic Johnson wasn’t enough to tip the scales for her in what could be the most pivotal part of the campaign season. If she doesn’t win New Hampshire and South Carolina, should she pack it in?
The problem with Clinton is that she looked like such an icon before she officially decided to enter this race. Voters grew more tired of the war-mongering, budget-busting antics of white males in black wing-tipped shoes. But as time goes on it seems Hillary’s pumps are looking more and more like wingtips. Perhaps this is most noticeable when she is compared to her chief Democratic rival for control of the Oval Office; Barack Obama. Potential voters are having second thoughts about Clinton because of her current stance on Iran.
Most rational people don’t want another war started on lies and slander as was the case with the US occupation of Iraq. From the beginning Clinton has shown some closet war-hawk tendencies and now she is at the point of no longer hiding it. Back in October 2002 Clinton voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution which authorized Bush the use of military force. This past September she pushed for a resolution declaring Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. That accusation gave Bush the validation he needed to begin a move against Iran; that is until the early December Intelligence report revealed that the Iranians stopped making nuclear weapons four years ago. Whatever the secret treaty is between the Clintons and Bushes, America simply can’t afford it at this point.
As Obama said Sunday on “Meet the Press,” let’s check under the hood and kick the tires. When Clinton joined the push for war that October, Obama, who was not yet a U.S. Senator, delivered a speech on October 26, 2002, that should never be forgotten.
On Iraq he stated: “I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances… What I am opposed to is a dumb war, what I am opposed to is a rash war; a war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.”
In Iowa, the Illinois Senator took 38% of the vote, followed by Edwards with 29.8% and Clinton at 29.5%. Obama seems like an appealing alternative to confrontational politics. He is not an insider in these old-boys clubs. He is best suited to open more dialogue with foreign leaders and get better results with less bloodshed.
Black Star contributor Chris Stevenson is a columnist for the Buffalo Criterion, email comments to him at email@example.com
To comment or to subscribe to or advertise in New York’s leading Pan African weekly investigative newspaper, or to send us a news tip, please call (212) 481-7745 or send a note to Milton@blackstarnews.com
Also visit out sister publications Harlem Business News www.harlembusinessnews.com and The Groove music magazine at www.thegroovemag.com
"Speaking Truth To Empower."
Ann GarrisonNovember 30,2013 @ 12:14 PM
It was sexy to be against the war back then. He was probably in it to get laid.
carpinteyrobwmJuly 14,2013 @ 09:29 PM
carpinteyrobwmJuly 14,2013 @ 08:34 PM
amslctciikJuly 13,2013 @ 01:47 AM
http://youngsgear.us - louis vuitton bags cheap on the inside...
No Record Exist!!