Recently, I wrote about how Bill Richardson, John Edwards and Barack Obama all participated in a Democracy for America (DFA) Q and A session where members ask the candidates questions and the candidates produce a You Tube video in response that is distributed to DFA members. This is, in essence, practically free advertising and a great chance to get your message out to a particularly active group of likely voters. I though Richardson, Edwards and Obama all did well, and if you go to my diary, I have the videos there for you to watch.
Hillary Clinton did not participate. I though this was both stupid and rude of her, particularly given the strong role DFA played in the 2006 elections. Some readers disagreed, suggesting she had no reason to participate. Well, before I cover the LATEST stupid and rude blow off by Clinton, I want to explain why her actions were stupid.
DFA boasts of a membership of well over half a million members. It is safe to say that most of these members are likely voters and, though some may be registered Green, or Working Families Party or Independent, most are Democrats. Of that half a million, about 50,000 are particularly active, organizing or participating in events, doing the footwork for candidates, and donating money...$2.6 million donated to candidates by the end of 2006. DFA's local affiliates cover 98% of America's Congressional districts. THIS is what Hillary Clinton chose to blow off.
For almost no money, Hillary could have joined Richardson, Obama and Edwards in sending her message to these 500,000 likely voters. But she didn't. To me that is just plain dumb.
And now, Hillary Clinton has chosen to blow off ANOTHER large group of voters: Native Americans.
The Indigenous Democratic Network (INDN), founded by Kalyn Free of the Choctaw Nation, has been working to empower Native Americans by educating them as voters, training activists, getting out the vote and electing candidates from Indian Country. In 2006, their efforts were decisive in tipping the Pennsylvania state legislature for the Democrats.
For 2008, INDN is organizing an event called "Prez on the Rez" which gives the Democratic presidential candidates a chance to reach out to Indian Country.
Bill Richardson was the first candidate to accept the invitation and recorded a special message for INDN, which does honor to Native Americans. By contrast, Hillary Clinton is the first and only (to date) candidate to spcifically REFUSE to participate in Prez on the Rez. Here is the press release from INDN:
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton today became the first and only candidate to refuse an invitation to speak at a first-ever candidate forum in Indian Country. The forum, called Prez on the Rez by its organizers, the INDN's List Education Fund (ILEF), will be August 23, on the reservation of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians in Cabazon, Calif. Senator Clinton was invited to Prez on the Rez more than six months ago.
Kalyn Free, president of the Tulsa-based ILEF, said, "Hillary Clinton's willingness to ignore Indian voters on the campaign trail has made it clear that she lacks the courage to change lives in Indian Country."
"I'm both disappointed and astonished that Senator Clinton has turned her back on American Indians. By refusing to participate in this historic event, she lost an opportunity to inspire an entire generation of American Indians to engage in the democratic process. Sadly, that reflects the hollowness of her rhetoric and the narrowness of her vision," said Free. "Just as tribes are gaining recognition for building political power in key states throughout the country, Senator Clinton is ignoring the needs - large and small - of Indian People. We demand a president who truly cares about who we are, who has the courage to change the shameful state of life in Indian Country and throughout America, and who has the vision to build a society all Americans can be proud of. I'm disheartened to say that Senator Clinton has proven she is not that leader."
Free said Senator Clinton made "starting a conversation" about strengthening the middle class, making healthcare more affordable, and bolstering the lives of children and families, the centerpieces of her campaign. On each of these counts, reflected in a staggering array of statistics, Indian Country falls far behind the rest of the nation, yet her proposals - detailed over the past two weeks - reflect the priorities of her campaign: they ignore Indian Country entirely.
On Memorial Day, Senator Clinton declared expanded healthcare coverage "a moral imperative," and proposed a solution involving investments in modernizing medicine and eliminating waste in the industry. While these improvements may cut costs for the majority of Americans who already have access to adequate healthcare, it will do nothing for the 30 percent of Indians who lack health coverage and the millions more whose reservations lie far from the modern medical facilities Senator Clinton hopes to improve. The waiting list for new "priority" healthcare facilities in Indian Country is nearly 60 years. Tribal citizens need champions that are not afraid to increase funding for tribal health programs. The need for this health funding is staggering: life expectancy of Native Americans is nearly six years less than any other race or ethnic group in America and 13% of Native deaths occur in citizens under 25, a rate three times higher than the average U.S. population.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights reported in 2003 that "American Indian youths are twice as likely to commit suicide. Native Americans are 630 percent more likely to die from alcoholism, 650 percent more likely to die from tuberculosis, 318 percent more likely to die from diabetes, and 204 percent more likely to suffer accidental death compared with other groups. "In a plan Senator Clinton outlined the following day, the Democrat proposed strengthening the middle class by protecting workers, reining in federal spending, punishing corporations that move jobs overseas, and supporting higher education. Yet outsourced jobs can hardly account for the 46% unemployment rate in Indian Country, where one in four live in poverty.
Clinton's indifference to Indian Country extends to the women and families that comprise its future. Free argues that Clinton should take a look at the lifelong disparities that face American Indians as they age, both on and off the reservation. A recent publication issued by Amnesty International reported one in three American Indian women will be raped at some point in their lives, a rate that is more than double that for non-Indian women. "The crisis of children and families in Indian Country continues to limit the opportunities for American Indians to build a better future, while Senator Clinton's willingness to ignore the state of Indians ensures the continuation of a terrible status quo," Free said.
Now I was not able to track down how many Native American voters are in America, but increasingly the Native American vote has been important in several states and, according to one analysis, it could play an important role in the 2008 election. To quote from a review of that analysis:
According to an article in the New York Times on September 24, 2004, "In the last few years, political races from Congress to county sheriff have begun to hinge on the Indian vote ... ." Indian tribes also have become big players in campaign contributions, lobbying and running candidates for office. Co-author McCool says that with the growing influence of the Western states in presidential primaries, the Indian vote will become even more important. "I think it's safe to say that there are specific scenarios where the presidential race could hinge on the vote in some Western states, much like it did on Florida in 2000 or Pennsylvania in 2004. Indian voters have already proven that they can swing statewide elections in Washington, Arizona, New Mexico and South Dakota. If any of these states becomes pivotal in a tight presidential race, the Indian vote could make the difference," says McCool.
"Native Vote" is the first book-length analysis of the newfound political power of American Indian people. It describes the long struggle of American Indians to get the right to vote, and explains how they are wielding this power to influence elections, and benefit tribes. The book offers an analysis of the 70-plus court cases in Indian Country that were based on the Voting Rights Act; several such cases are still in the courts. "Native Vote" is the only comprehensive study of these cases. The Voting Rights Act was reauthorized by Congress in September 2006, so there is a strong likelihood that many more cases will be filed in the future. There was a time when American Indians were not considered players on the political stage. That perception has changed dramatically in recent years, and all indications are that Native peoples are now a potent force in Western politics. "Native Vote" explains how this change came about, and how it is affecting contemporary elections.
Sorry, Hillary. Much as I think you have considerable potential to make a good president, to date you are giving me no reason whatsoever to support you in the primary.
Submitted by BJ (not verified) on 31 May 2007 - 1:23am.
Hey – since you’re a YouTuber, you might want to check this out… There’s a video company that’s recruiting YouTubers and if they like your stuff, (and they should) they will actually pay you when your video gets a hit. Here’stheirlink…www.flownetworkproductions.com/videorevenue.htm. It’s about time the people who make the videos get some of the money instead of it all going to YouTube!
While Hillary has declined to participate, other candidates have also not yet committed, so singling her out is misleading. There is a reason for this, which is that the Prez on the Rez event is scheduled to take place at a casino on an Indian reservation, and for that reason California's powerful labor unions are opposed to it. I'll quote an excerpt from an AP story. Here's a link to an AP news digest that includes the story:
"SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) _ The organizer of a Democratic presidential forum that is expected to draw American Indian leaders from around the country to Southern California says that opposition from a labor union has prompted top contenders to shy away from attending.
The fate of the event, called "Prez on the Rez" by its organizers, has become embroiled in a state political dispute sparked by an attempt by wealthy gambling tribes to expand their casino operations.
Labor unions, close allies of the Democrats who control the state Legislature, are opposed to most of the tribes' efforts because they say the expansion deals will make it more difficult to organize casino workers."
So this is why these candidates, not just Hillary, but all the candidates except Richardson, are backing off this event. No candidates except Richardson and Gravel have accepted, and yet you single out Hillary? It is unfair. Obama and Edwards also haven't committed and won't likely risk losing potential union endorsements by going to an event they haven't approved. These organizers must know that in democratic politics you have to play the game, and you can't jeopardize your chances to win in an entire state by pissing off the local labor unions. So I think it is unfair to blast Hillary as anti-Indian over this, when the reasons for her declining are perfectly clear, which is the unions don't want the event taking place at an indian casino where they can't organize the workers. The organizers were negotiating with the unions and those negotiations fell through. If the unions give their approval, Hillary and the other candidates will probably show up.
As for DFA, Hillary has no chance at that endorsement and has a well known rift with Howard Dean, over Dean's 50 state DNC strategy. I think she should have responded and hope she still will. There was no deadline given. But if she declines to respond, given limited resources and time, to a group that she believes for the most part is dead set against her campaign, its not like you can blame her.
So you are saying that Hillary is so dominated by special interests that she can't even be polite to the grassroots. Boy is THAT a condemnation of Clinton!
Hillary is the ONLY candidate to specifically refuse. So that is why she is singled out. She is also the only major candidate to refuse to participate in the DFA event. This really shows she has no interest in anything but top contributors. I think it is a very lousy message she is sending.
As to the other thing she is doing is she is sending a message to hundreds of thousands of likely voters and tens of thousands of activists that she doesn't care about them. That will give those people no incentive to work for her in the general election if she wins. This isn't just about the primary. Not every Democrat is as strategic as I am, willing to back the primary winner. Many, and many independents among DFA and Native Americans, will also be taking the hint that Hillary doesn't want them. That will HURT her in the general if she wins the primary.
Seems to me this is also a condemnation of unions. Unions, who I generally have supported all my life, are opposing an event that connects candidates with Native Americans? That is insane! Absolutely insane! And you are okay with this?
I am for empowerment of underrepresented groups and it is hard to get more underrepresented than Native Americans. So I think this attempt by establishment groups to keep Native Americans disenfranchised is pretty despicable, and Hillary's leadership in maintaining that disenfranchisement is even more dispicable. And your defense of disenfranchisement...well that is nothing new to those of us who heard your stuff in NYC's primary elections.
By the way, thanks for properly citing the news source with link and without excessive quoting.
"During her husband's eight years as President, she spent more time in Indian Country than any other First Lady, giving particular focus to the reservations in most need. She also supported President Clinton's strengthened relationship with tribes - the strongest it had been in the nation's history. President Clinton coordinated the first-ever economic summit to build up tribal economies and was the first President since Franklin Roosevelt to visit a reservation.
As Senator, Hillary Clinton has supported funding for American Indian health care, housing and education programs; co-sponsored legislation related to Indian-owned small businesses and the protection of tribal cultures; and spearheaded a campaign to close the minority health care divide. She also co-sponsored the Native American Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Technical Amendment Act of 2001, which clarified the eligibility of Indian women for the optional Medicaid eligibility category added by the Breast and Cervical Prevention and Treatment Act of 2000."
Look at her record before writing incendiary headlines like "Hillary Clinton to Indian Country- Drop Dead" You sound like you write for the New York Post, that is the sort of headlines THEY write, or the national enquirer. You don't define a candidate's entire relationship with one group over declining one event. One debate does not keep an entire underepresented group disenfranchised. Hillary has done a lot for native americans.
Also you have an agenda mole. John Edwards and Barack Obama have also specifically not accepted the invitations. If one of them had been the first to decline, I strongly believe you would not have written "Barack Obama to Indian Country-- Drop Dead" or "John Edwards to Indian Country. Because you don't have an agenda against them. With Hillary you are looking for shit to throw against the fan. You are biased, just admit it.
This from the gentleman who advocated not worrying about accuracy.
Fine if Clinton has a history of helping Indian Country. And kudos for finding some info on it. But she is also specifically blowing them off now. Obama and Edwards have not responded to date...and I have contacted their campaigns about it...with no reply so far. If silence continues you can bet I will write about it. But to date Hillary is the only one who has specifically told Indian Country they can forget about her participation. THAT is what I was writing about.
My agenda is winning in November 2008. I have no specific primary candidate and I consider Clinton acceptable, though she makes it increasingly hard to support her in the primary. You, on the other hand, have made it clear that you think she should just be annointed, primary be damned. And you brook no criticism of her even when she say's go to hell to the most disenfranchised voters in the nation in favor of wealthier special interests. I have praised all of our candidates when I found it appropriate. I have defended Hillary against some who have attacked her. So give me a fucking break. The criticism is legit and the info accurate.
The criticism is legit-- yes she turned down the invitation to that debate-- but it is biased. You did not criticize Obama and Edwards for not accepting this same invitation. No they haven't turned it down but they likely won't accept it either and risk losing union endorsements. Anyway you are roasting Hillary for "not accepting" the invitation, as of yet, to post a video on DFA's site. So why are you not ripping Edwards and Obama for "not accepting" this tribal groups invitation? Why only Hillary? Because you are biased.
You posted that incendiary headline "Hillary Clinton to Indian Country: Drop Dead" without even bothering to research her record. Without even bothering to find out that Hillary, along with Tom Daschle, was the co-organizer of the first ever Senate Democratic Native American Forum. Without bothering to look at her votes on appropriation bills for Native American issues.
Your desire to flame Hillary at the first instant, while leaving the other candidates alone, shows pure bias. So give me a fucking break. Hillary does not deserve to be accused of telling all native americans to drop dead just because she declined one specific group's invitation. Does she have to kiss the ass of every member of every minority group to be seen as being on their side? She also recently declined an invitation to some event in Iowa. Does that mean she is telling all Iowans to "drop dead" Of course not! Only someone highly manipulative and with a specific agenda would blow something like that out of distortion. You use the tactics of Fox News! You should retract that headline, it borders on being libelous and highly distorts the situation at best.
You continue to recite your litany of Obama and Edwards did it too WHEN THEY DID NOT DECLINE. To date they have not responded as far as I have heard FROM THE ORGANIZERS of the event. They specifically stated that Hillary was the first and ONLY one so far to outright decline. So stop distorting the facts. I said it absolutely correctly and, quite honestly, not really that biased. ONLY...ONLY Hillary has declined, no matter what you claim in your personal bias.
You accuse anyone who criticizes Hillary of some kind of nefarious plot. This is exactly your pattern. You can't simply add the note that Hillary has done stuff for Native Americans before and she is terrified of the unions. That perspective was worthwhile. But you have to immediately turn it into some crusade for St. Hillary.
Hillary HAS NOT DECLINED the DFA invitation either, just as Obama and Edwards have not declined the Prez on the Rez invitation. Yet you make a huge distinction there. You blast hillary for not accepting the DFA deal *yet* you not do blast Edwards and Obama for not accepting the Prez on the Rez deal *yet* In one case it is acceptable to "not accept as of yet" some invitation (hillary/dfa) but in another case (obama/edwards and prez on the rez) it is not? It is hypocritical.
Also I do not believe Hillary is terrified of the unions. That is another distortion you read into her declining that invitation. She simply knows how the game is played, and knows one appearance or debate is not worth losing vital union endorsements. Edwards and Obama no doubt know this too. But you are not biased against them.
When you judge candidates based on whose important asses they have kissed, and not on the substance of the issues, you are playing "politics as usual" Tht is what you are doing. What Hillary has or hasn't done in the past on behalf of Native Americans simply seems to matter less to you than whether she has kissed the ass of this particular vocal group. Whether Hillary takes progressive/liberal stands seems to matter less to you than whether she has kissed the ass of DFA. You are looking for symbolism over substance. That is, again, politics as usual. You can't crusade against politics as usual, against back room schmoozing and special interest ass-kissing, when you are demanding that the candidates do that very thing.
I am not crusading for Hillary, I am defending her against what I think was a cruel, unnecessary headline. She has not told indian country to drop dead. More likely than not, she will be the democratic nominee next year. You are not putting yourself in a position to be a strong advocate for the ticket when you have your byline under such vicious headlines. Again I suggest you change that headline. Don't editorialize in it. It should simply say something like "Hillary declines Indian Country debate invitation" There is no need for the cruel, insensitive, outright hostile words you used in that headline.
No...as usual you take a stand and keep to it no matter what the evidence. I laid out exactly where I differed with her, posted figures as to why I thought she was being foolish, quoted the view of the organizers, and all you do is whine about my being unfair to her. No. I am not being unfair to her. I am reporting how her campaign (perhaps I should emphasize HER CAMPAIGN, not her per se) is consistently behaving in an imperious, rude and quite possible poorly strategic manner. You should well know that I have gotten flak for doing the same thing to campaigns I support when I thought they were making mistakes. If somehow I am tarnishing your Saint's halo, tough.
Now I have better things to do. At least this time you contributed two bits of actual useful information bfore turning the discussion into twaddle. The article regarding her past involvement with Indian Country and the article suggesting that she will only kiss the biggest of asses (in this case big labor, a force I sometimes love sometimes hate) and 500,000 grassroots activists and, currently, Indian Country don't have big enough asses even collectively for her.
Then again, YOU are the one who is viewing everything as kissing ass. I have, from the beginning, viewed it as who she and the other candidates find worth communicating ideas with. But you have to always bring it to the level of whose kissing whose ass, I guess. But I'm done with this dicussion.
You criticize Hillary for "not accepting" the DFA thing, but you will not criticize Obama or Edwards for "not accepting" the Prez on the Rez thing. It is hypocritical. In my opinion, you have an agenda. Which is to bash Hillary, fairly or unfairly, in whatever way and by whatever means you deem reasonable. That is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion. I honestly believe that if it was Edwards or Obama who had been the first to decline that debate, that you would have said nothing. Posted nothing. I mean I hope you would have, but it is not my gut feeling.
Big union support is crucial in some of these early primaries, such as Iowa as you well know. I am sure that one of the criteria that these unions look at when making endorsements is "which candidates have supported them by not appearing at events organized by groups that are anti-union or taking place in facilities that are not unionized" Hillary appearing in an indian reservation casino that will not allow union organizing would be a slap in the face to them. They no doubt feel that the service employees in these indian casinos need protection, that the owners of these casinos are putting profits ahead of the needs of their workers.
So what if Hillary accepted and lost a big union's endorsement because of it? And then potentially lost Iowa or some of the other big midwest union states because of those unions endorsing other candidates? She *definitely* cannot help native americans in their cause if she can't get elected! Or worse, what if the big unions put up picket lines on the night of the debate and make an issue of her and other candidates crossing it? Surely you can see that one event, one little event on a long campaign calendar, isn't necessarily worth that kind of aggravation. If Hillary's work/record on behalf of native americans isn't going to matter as much to tribal voters as her appearing at one event, then she probably isn't going to get their votes in the first place.
Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.
Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.
In the Beltway’s eyes, Markos leads a movement of progressives in the blogosphere. But this is inaccurate, and Markos would be the first to tell you so. Markos doesn’t lead the movement. He stands in front of it and is symbolic of it, but the movement’s direction and interests flow directly from the people who compose it. The movement is a bottom-up thing, not something that a guy leads from the top.
It’s probably comforting for Democratic politicians to believe that Markos leads the movement in the progressive blogosphere. That being the case, all they have to do is soothe the savage breasts of Markos and other rabble-rousing bloggers and then get back to business as usual. That’s why Democratic politicians are so unfailingly solicitous of the liberal bloggers.
Post to Twitter
Hey – since you’re a
Hey – since you’re a YouTuber, you might want to check this out… There’s a video company that’s recruiting YouTubers and if they like your stuff, (and they should) they will actually pay you when your video gets a hit. Here’stheirlink…www.flownetworkproductions.com/videorevenue.htm. It’s about time the people who make the videos get some of the money instead of it all going to YouTube!