Consequences of 2008

Written By: Brandon Parrish 

October 28, 2008 was a glorious day. It was the day I turned 16. (Every October 28^th is glorious by the way) Nonetheless, on that day, I saw a “skinny guy with a funny name” energize and educate a crowd of individuals, from every demographic you can think of, about his platform of hope and change. From seniors to teenagers, from blue collar workers to white collar workers, thousands stood in line for hours to hear Senator Barack Obama speak. It was freezing and raining, but there we were, catching colds and hypothermia just to see and hear him speak. That election was electric. From sea to shining sea, the emotion was overwhelming and everyone felt it. The first African American president was elected. We all love President Obama. With accomplishments such as Obamacare, Cuba, Iran, Dodd Frank, the automotive industry, the unemployment rate and many more, his resume is impressive; however, his election and presidency had some consequences - primarily for the general electorate and for African Americans.

President Obama is one of the greatest politicians this country has ever seen. The foundation of his appeal is his public speaking. During his keynote address in 2004, I saw the ghosts of Dr. King and President Kennedy. His genuine demeanor, authentic swagger, and unifying rhetoric electrified an electorate that had been waiting for a politician of his caliber. Although this electorate only appears every four years, they are loud and displeased with the status quo. I do not mean to say progress has not been made with the Obama administration, but we do see a lot of the same politics as usual. The working poor are being ignored, Wall Street is swimming in record profits, and the police are gunning down our citizens.

 Now, the same electorate that was awakened during the 2008 election cycle is wide-awake in 2016. It is now Senator Bernie Sanders who is speaking their language. It’s no secret President Obama is pulling for Hillary Clinton, but those two represent the politics of the last 8-24 years:  the establishment. Obama was a card-carrying member of the establishment in 2008 –Harry Reid told him to run! With Obama and the Democrat’s laser point focus on the middle class, it seems they have forgotten about the poor. They are creating jobs but the income gap is astronomical. There are families in New York City pulling in $18,000 a year! They talk about hi-tech jobs and trade, but do they expect the 68-year-old man who lost his retirement to the great recession and his job to trade deals to hop on social security, Medicare, and food stamps to live the rest of life with dignity?

The first African American president was elected, and while I commend the president for leading the discussion on prison reform, I am disappointed with his political calculation in regard to police brutality. The argument is that Obama cannot be just the President of Black America – he must be the President of all Americans. This is true, but aren’t African Americans still American? On one hand, we demonize anyone who proclaims all lives matter. On the other, our president said all lives matter in his 2015 state of the union and his approval ratings soared. He doesn’t have to tell the truth about police brutality? Why is the standard lower for him? Is it because he’s black? Well, that just makes him another out-of-touch black politician – the best one though. It is this type of calculation that people are sick of. Someone needs to tell Hillary that wrapping herself in Obama isn’t going to sway this new electorate. And while you’re at it, you can tell the CBC that black people don’t care who they endorse.

Though President Obama is part of the problem, the spirit of his campaign lives. The new electorate that he expelled from the shadows is present and accounted for. Voters just want to Hillary Clinton to be herself. She is smart and experienced, but this new electorate rewards honesty, authenticity, and courage of conviction. The Clintonian politics of the 90’s are not going to work anymore. It’s a new day. The revolution is coming.

~ Consigliere 

THE IOWA ROUND UP

With the Iowa caucuses having come and gone, Americans got their first glimpse of who the people would like to see as the next President. First, let us congratulate the official winners of the caucuses: former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Ted Cruz. Hillary Clinton did well to narrowly exorcise her demons of 2008, when then Senator Barack Obama crushed her expectations with voter turnout, winning the Iowa caucuses, Cruz, on the other hand, pulled off the “upset” of the night by beating Donald Trump who held a sizable lead in the polls. Both winners deserve credit, but did they actually solidify their front-runner positions in this long, tumultuous race for the White House? This calls for a good old-fashioned Iowa caucus round-up!

Let us start off with what went wrong in the Iowa caucuses. We begin with the Republican polls leader, Donald Trump — because let’s be honest, he is not the front-runner anymore. Donald Trump had to learn the hard way that polls are misleading and it is better to have the element of surprise than to be knocked off the mantle. For a short moment, the billionaire was in jeopardy of falling to third, as Marco Rubio was on his heels. After leading in the polls in Iowa for several months, many, myself included, assumed that Trump would win Iowa and this would set the tone for the rest of the Republican nomination process. However, what we saw was that ground game beats big game any day of the week — which leads me to Ted Cruz. Though it came to light that he spread false rumors about Dr. Carson, we can assume that it would not have made much of a difference. Cruz had what I like to call the Three Es that Iowans are looking for: Evangelism, Experience, and Ethanol. All three are very much needed in Iowa; put that together with his ground game and Cruz cannot fail.

On to the Democratic side, I cannot say much went wrong since everything pretty much went as planned. From the beginning, Senator Sanders hedged expectations by saying they would “do well” in Iowa and, by and large, he did just that. Voter turnout was high and he lost by the narrowest of margins. Hillary also did very well as well. The only criticism I would give her is to hold off on declaring victory before actually winning. This only plays into the narrative that the system is stacked in her favor, and everyone loves an underdog.

Now, it is time for the good that came of the caucuses. In my first article, I wrote on how Marco Rubio could potentially come out and separate himself from the crowded field. The caucuses proved just that, as Rubio nearly came in second, finishing only one percent behind Donald Trump. The Republicans have noticed that Rubio is the best shot to getting them into the White House, though he has little governing experience in Washington. Another benefit of the caucuses was that people began dropping out. With the field diminishing in both parties, voters have the opportunity to separate the men from the boys. Policies and ideas can be the basis on which we choose the next president, not sound bites or brand recognition. I expect that in the coming days, more candidates will begin to drop out, giving us more depth in the debates.

In conclusion, the Iowa caucuses prove what they always do: that nothing is ever as it seems in American politics. As we turn towards New Hampshire, things will begin to get more and more personal. Campaigns will start to have to go into make-or-break mode; and this is especially so for the candidate governors. Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich have to make their cases and get people to vote for them or pack it in. I think that one of them will do well enough to remain in the race, but two will have to drop out. Bernie Sanders has a big lead in New Hampshire largely because Vermont is a neighboring state; but should his numbers hold up in the polls; this will hurt Hillary more going forward in Nevada and South Carolina. If Iowa was the starting ground, New Hampshire is the first wind, and may it always be at the backs of the candidate of your choice.

Potential Dropouts: Carson, Fiorina, and Kasich.

~ Consigliere

The D N Clinton !!!

Editor-in-Chic: Nia Langley 

At the beginning of this election season, former Governor Martin O'Malley voiced many complaints about how many debates the Democratic National Committee (DNC) should have, saying that there should be more debates to give the American people an opportunity to really understand who is running for president and where they stand on the issues. At first, like many people, I saw his cries as someone whining because he would not have a seat at the big kids' table; but now looking back, I see that he may have some merit to voice his concerns.  In a very lop-sided Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton is primed to run away with the nomination without having any serious problems before the general election. The question is: should she be allowed to claim that prize undeterred?

No matter what happens, we are all smart enough to know that Hillary Clinton will win the nomination; and I have no problems with that, especially since Biden has decided that he would not run for office.  The problem I have is Mrs. Clinton running away with the nomination. In a country that champions the power of the people’s right to choose their leaders, I believe it is important that the people have as many opportunities as possible to hear what the candidates have to say on the issues. Debates provide the perfect platform for the voters to do just that.  This election season has seven Democratic primary debates. To most, that may seem like a lot, but when looking back to 2008 when there were twenty-six, the current number really pales in comparison. Even though the Republican debates have proved to be less substantive, they still have 11 this season.

Former Governor O’Malley is currently in last place with 88 days left until the Iowa caucus, and many have written him off, me included; yet for the DNC to considerably limit the number of opportunities for the other candidates only adds fuel to the rumors that the Clintons have total control of the DNC. Why would they want to have control? If you remember correctly, around this same time eight years ago, Madam Clinton was in a similar position — she was leading in all the national polls and was the proverbial favorite to become the nominee. By debate 19, then Senator Obama was surging, and after debate 21, he was leading, and we all know what happened after that.  The only way history does not repeat itself is if you limit the amount of free exposure the public has to the unknown candidates.

Well played Clintons, well played. Now in no way, shape, or form does this mean that this is what happened, but it does make sense. If there is one thing I hate, it is sounding like a conspiracy theorist, so let me be clear — there is no conspiracy here because if what I say is true, the Clinton Campaign has done nothing wrong. They are supposed to be in coordination with the DNC, and they did just that. The DNC, on the other hand, should have never given so much power to one campaign. In an election cycle where the White House can legitimately be purchased, now, more than ever, the people should be the ones deciding who their next president should be, not special interest groups and definitely not national committees. Mr. O’Malley, though you will not be the next President of these United States, your cries have not fallen on deaf ears. You came up short because you went against the DNC, but in this case it was the (D N Clinton).

~Consigliere

Democratic Primary Debate Review

Writer: Brandon Parrish
Editor-in-Chic: Nia Langley 

I am a Democrat, and after this debate, I am still unclear on who to vote for. Social media is telling me Bernie Sanders is the best candidate, but I disagree. Hillary shares my views, and her experiences would serve us well in Washington; but in my gut, she seems untrustworthy. Governor O’Malley was rather impressive, but his record in Baltimore disturbs me. Senator Webb and Governor Chafee, unfortunately, did not get enough speaking time to even make a fair assessment.
I have an issue with Bernie Sanders not because he is a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist, but primarily because of his opinion on big banks.

It seems as if there is a misconception on the cause of the great recession. All the cards began to fall during the mortgage crisis. We all know the government failed to regulate the purchase of subprime mortgages by the banks, mainly investment banks. Banks were buying these mortgages with a reckless abandon, over-leveraging themselves to the point where they had not raised enough capital to ensure their solvency. So when Americans began to default on their mortgage, the income stream for the banks began to wither away right along with their solvency. But, had it not been for the big banks, we would be in a different position than we are in now. Remember, JPMorgan Chase, one of the big commercial banks, bailed out Bear Stearns, an investment bank, with some help from the federal government; this action gave the markets confidence in the financial system. However, when Lehman Brothers, an investment bank, filed for bankruptcy, the financial system began a downward spiral. Bank of America bought Merrill Lynch and Countrywide, Wells Fargo bought Wachovia, J.P. Morgan bought Bear Stearns, and the U.S. Treasury took control of AIG. So the argument can be made that the banks are bigger because of the aversion of a complete financial meltdown.  I love Bernie Sanders' ideas, but whether you believe me or not, they are radical and they would not see the light of day in Congress.

What we really needed to hear was the plan the candidates had to combat the gridlock in the government. It is time that we buckle down and accept the hard truth; that there are things that we want as Democrats that we are not going to get, in order to achieve things that we really need to get done. There are positions that we need not move an inch on and positions that we may need to compromise on in order to get things like a living wage, income equality, gun control, extended paid maternity leave for women, and universal healthcare. And while I am on the subject of gridlock, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the political apathy among us Democrats. We cannot afford to only wake up when it is time to elect a president. When President Obama was elected in 2008, we enjoyed huge majorities in both houses of Congress. The healthcare law was passed, the auto industry was saved, Wall Street reform passed, and equal pay for equal work passed; but 2 years later, we lost the majority we enjoyed in the House and the filibuster-proof majority we enjoyed in the Senate. We got more seats back in 2012 when we re-elected President Obama, but Democrats were slaughtered in the 2014 midterm elections. Why you ask? Because Democrats did not turn out to vote, mainly millennials. Yes, the presidential elections matter, however, our state, local, and congressional elections matter just as much if not more.

What seems apparent from the debate is Hillary’s vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq still haunts her and will haunt her for the duration of this presidential season. With the nuclear deal with Iran, ongoing civil war in Syria, and Putin’s bully swag, that vote can be seen as an indicator of the future of President Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy. Also remember that Clinton advised for the raid on Osama bin Laden, advocated to arm the Syrian rebels, and also wanted to institute a no-fly zone. All of this combined with the terrorist attacks in Benghazi damages Clinton’s campaign. However, according to what was said in the debates, all the Democrats, with Senator Webb as an exception, seem to be weak on foreign policy. Granted, I do not believe foreign policy gravitas will be a factor in democratic politics, but it will matter when it is time to govern.

Before I sum everything up, I need to address the African American community’s relationship with the Democratic Party. I love the fact that a majority of the candidates during the debates said black lives matter. But talk is very cheap. I may get in trouble for this later in life but this is just how I feel; blacks have been blindly loyal to the Democratic Party since the FDR’s New Deal. Yes, since the New Deal, blacks have progressed through society but that is not enough. Why you ask? Because our schools are still subpar. About a fifth of black people are unemployed and half of the 80% of us who are working are underemployed. It is 2015 and we watch movies from the 70s and 80s that make fun of police brutality against black people and it is still relevant. Our neighborhoods still look like they are straight out of the third world but we run to the polls with our blindfolds on while democrats whisper sweet nothings in our ears. They advocate for the use of body cameras as if that will make a difference.  Bernie Sanders talked about a political revolution that needs to place in America. But a faction of that revolution needs to be black people who stand up to the politicians who pander just to get our vote. We need to demand that our leaders work to transform the hood into safe, economic hubs of opportunity and discourage law enforcement from even feeling comfortable drawing a gun on anyone who is unarmed. And if we do not see an effort to legislate our demands, we will start a movement that will rival the Protestant Reformation and make sure they could not get elected to be their child’s parent!

Taking everything into account, the Democratic debate was substantial and constructive. Compared to the Republican debates, the Democrats portrayed maturity and gravity. Governor O’Malley with all of his pathos gained the most ground, and I believe he emerges with the most momentum, but not a victory. This debate, like the entire primary, is Hillary Clinton’s to lose. And she did not lose. She was very presidential in this debate. But as one of my good friends said, “Bernie is so convincing"; and convincing he was. He was talking directly to every working-class Democrat watching the debate. He came out victorious because of his passion and clarity; but Hillary proved she is presidential material. I can say this primary season will be one for the ages.

~Consigliere