Timing on Sudan – It’s all about China, stupid …

President Bush’s recent announcement of aggressive U.S. sanctions against the genocidal Khartoum government is no real coincidence.  Interestingly enough, it comes a full week after the visit of a high-level Chinese delegation to Washington, where Bush’s famed personability didn’t match Congress’ vexations when meeting with the Chinese on a number of uncomfortable subjects related to a growing trade deficit and devalued Chinese currency. 

Surely, Sudan was raised at that time.  The White House and Capitol Hill tag-teamed a bit of good cop/bad cop on the innocent-acting Chinese delegation, hoping to feel them out. So, it came as no surprise when – days later – the Pentagon offered an unusually stern warning to the Chinese military about their gradual military build-up off the shores of Taiwan. 

Now the sanctions game begins. 

Critics comment on how such actions are “too little, too late” and how the Administration should have been proactive several years ago when janjaweed militias scourged death and devastation across the East African land.  But, at that time, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell may have cared while his boss really didn’t – the Administration couldn’t or didn’t want to justify a “national security” interest there, perhaps too caught up in smart-allecky, outdated anti-Clinton Republican party talking points about how the previous President “wagged the dog” with missile strikes on toothpaste factories or … perhaps the Administration felt the need to privately “make nice” with an unpredictable Beijing. 

We think the latter.  Which is why the U.S.-China trade deficit continues to balloon since certain corporate interests (lobbying the White House) would hate losing investments in the new frontier, fast-growing Chinese economy.  “Don’t rock that boat,” say the barons “Because there’s much money to be made.  The deficit will take care of itself.  And Africa?  Who cares about Africa?”  But a consensus soon emerged throughout the Beltway that China was making serious inroads and loot in Africa, in ways that the United States was not.  China’s footprint in Africa turned out to be a strategic embarrasment for the United States, which is now scrambling to put its face on the continent via AIDS funding, proxy wars in Somalia and sanctions in Sudan.  The U.S. strategy will be an attempt to paint the Chinese as heartless neo-colonialists pillaging the continent and supporting oppressive regimes in places like Sudan and Zimbabwe, all the while building up its presence off the Taiwanese shores.  Scapegoat another junta for the problems in the world while the U.S. looks all good.  There is remote hope in the White House that, perhaps, this will change the global mood towards the U.S. in a positive way.  Can the world forgive the U.S. for Iraq?  We doubt it.  Still the White House hopes for a miracle in Africa, where the Chinese will appear barbaric while the Romans maintain their stature.  At the same time, toying with China’s East African oil chest might prompt them to reconsider the trade gap and a devalued yuan.   

The Payoffs of Party Loyalty

These will appear as tough, unpleasant times for Republicans, but they aren’t all that good for Congressional majority Democrats either.   The GOP seems to gradually engineer some sort of political comeback, a meticulous crafting of cadence and message intertwined.  It’s rather amusing to watch, and it should be of great concern to Democrats who maintain that their majority on the Hill is the result of displeasure with the direction of the war. 

As recent political maneuvers suggest, Republicans are gaining legislatively by remaining unified.  This is illustrated by the failure of Democrats to counter successive Bush vetoes on a war funding bill containing “timelines.”  That will, of course, strike many as odd and infuriating considering the President’s plummeting approval ratings – how could a guy doing that sour in the polls be this powerful on the Hill.  The answer is the core of the Republican instinct: a fierce passion for party loyalty expressed in a rather fanatical desire to excommunicate those who don’t subscribe to it.  It is the ”last stand” of their arsenal that can, in their most vulnerable moments, serve as a most effective tool.  And it serves quite a purpose in forcing Democrats to acquiesce on war funding timelines.  

The reality of the situation is that there is no exit from Iraq without the potential for calamitous consequences throughout the entire region.  Democrats knew this before their 2006 election pitches, but continued pushing the notion that they would craft a withdrawal.  Republicans, acutely aware of the geo-politics, rally around their unpopular President and his misguided policy – despite the political dangers forecasted.  Party loyalty in GOP ranks is a powerful ointment for the politically dispossessed.  They want that majority back real bad. 

The only good thing out of this is that we have a war subjected to continuous oversight as opposed to a war that had none.  But: do not be fooled.  We still have a war, and it will be here for some time. 

The success of party loyalty at all costs is also rearing its sociopathic head in the unraveling Justice Department scandal.  Monica Goodling’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee only served to confirm what we already knew about the modern Republican DNA and its nasty disposition towards maintaining ideological and partisan purity.  Republican members on the Committee did all they could do to keep this fact from spilling into the public consciousness.  What Goodling did is no different from what’s been happening throughout the Administration;  if the next President is a Democrat, they’ve got quite a mess to clean up at the DOJ.  It’s not [just] Karl Rove – its his party, stupid.       

Immigration Reform & Lost Black Clout …

Immigration reform, despite skeptics on the left and right, is all but certain to pass in some form in the coming weeks.  The White House will do what it takes to make this deal – perhaps at the expense of losing conservative respect – because President Bush needs some sort of positive legacy to somehow outweigh blunders in Iraq.  And Republicans are pressed to find their version of the “Black vote” to counter the Democrats’ Black vote.

The parallels to Lyndon B. Johnson are quite prominent: two Texans overseeing the two most unpopular and poorly executed wars in American history, each using a key domestic issue to offset the damage done.  In Johnson’s case, it was the War on Poverty and civil rights.  With Bush it’s becoming immigration. 

In each instance, both Texans attempted to curry heavy favor with the key “minority” group or “oppressed” demographic of their time: in Johnson’s case, it was frequent and intimate negotiations with the major African American political elite and civil rights vanguard of that era; in Bush’s case, it is frequent and constant negotiations with the major Latino American political elite and civil/immigration rights vanguard of this era. 

Perhaps this is a bit presumptive of us, but Texas politicians are very adept at brokering deals at the blatant exclusion of one group in favor of another.  There is hard-core political shrewdness and calculation in that maneuver. Johnson brokered civil rights in clear favor of a positive outcome for the “Negro” of his time, pretty much dissing powerful Southern White segregationists because he understood those big marches in places like Selma and D.C. translated into solid voting blocs for him and other Democrats.  What’s interesting is that the current White House (occupied by another Texan) is in a somewhat similar situation, orchestrating a wholesale dis of the political right in an effort to grab favor with the largest minority in the U.S.  

But, the White House, in collusion with Congress, has taken another extraordinary step in pretty much excluding the Black political establishment on this issue, which is rather significant.  African Americans - over the course of several hundred years – defined and created the basis for civil rights in the U.S., thereby making it easier for other dispossessd and disadvantaged groups to claim humanity through legal and legislative mandate.  As the nation’s economic power was built on the backs of African slaves, so too are the civil rights now claimed by many more than just Black people.  Including Hispanics. 

Recent reports on negotiations suggest the absence of Black civil rights organizations from the conversation.  As Krissah Williams and Johnathan Weismann write in the Washington Post:

After laboring in obscurity for decades, groups such as the National Council of La Raza, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the National Immigration Forum are virtually being granted veto power over perhaps the biggest domestic issue coming before Congress this year. Organizations that represent what is now the nation’s largest minority group are beginning to achieve power commensurate with their numbers.

The White House, well aware that immigration may offer President Bush his last best chance at a major domestic achievement for his second term, has worked hard to keep the groups on board, even as Bush has shifted to the right with a new plan that is tougher than the proposals he embraced last year.

The White House held a meeting 2 1/2 weeks ago with Latino advocates, labor unions and civil rights organizations in which an adviser outlined an administration’s policy based on increased border security and a temporary-worker program. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez have also met with some of the groups.

“At least they are paying attention to us,” said MALDEF President John Trasviña.

The fact that the Commerce Secretary – also a Cuban-American immigrant – plays a prominent role is no coincidence, underscoring the $450 billion per year Latino immigrants contribute to the American economy.  American businesses, in particular, have a strong interest in maintaining a cheap, very available and transient work force.  This has the potential impact of not only driving down wages and, ultimately, living standards for many low-income African Americans still struggling with an array of social, economic and health disparities.  It could also create more unemployment in the Black community as employers favor cheaper workers with little demands over legal citizen workers who rightfully expect to earn more. 

Hence, Black elected officials, assorted civil rights organizations and longstanding community advocates must aggressively insert themselves in this debate or it could create very real problems for African Americans in the future.  If Black elected officials, especially the Congressional Black Caucus, decide to sleep on creating solid ties with the Latino political establishment, then growing Latino political clout buoyed by a fast growing Latino population will rapidly diminish Black political clout - something acquired very recently.  In addition, the reported anti-Black racism within many Latin American communities and countries (particularly against large populations of African descent in places like Mexico, Brazil and Columbia) does not help this situation as there is concern that majority Latino populations may not hesitate in excluding or discriminating against African Americans already burdened by such before the arrival of Latino immigrants.  Recent incidents involving brutal attacks of African Americans by Latino immigrants in Southern California further underscore that anxiety.    

True, the immigration problem (presently unresolved) presents issues requiring immediate response.  But, if we were the Congressional Black Caucus, we’d be concerned by the unprecedented overnight political access granted to Latino political groups at the exclusion of Black political input.  

This is why it becomes risky (and dangerous) for the Black political establishment to take partisan sides too quickly.  The fact that the White House doesn’t include Black politicos in this discussion (while brokering new political deals with their emerging Hispanic friends [could stubborn White House support of AG Gonzales be a part of this deal? We wonder ... ]) is more than likely a direct consequence of public and sometimes very personal bashing of the President by Black elected officials and organization heads.  Therefore, the White House feels they do not owe anything to African Americans or their political “agenda,” especially in relation to the immigration issue.  Unlike their Latino counterparts, Black elected officials are too quick in maintaining hardline support of the Democratic party, at the risk of cutting off any normal political communication with the Republican party.  Latino groups, however, appear to have planted seeds of clout on both sides of this aisle, basing positions on the issues rather than on the party.  Frankly, that’s smart politics. Situations such as these require participation on both sides of the aisle, where Black politicos could have been advising salivating Republicans who are eager to welcome their new “colored vote” as a final solution to offset the influence of loyal Democratic Black voters. 

Democratic leaders on the Hill could find themselves caught in a political trap if they go beyond a certain political threshold in crafting an immigration deal , losing the support of Western U.S. votes in 2008 (indicated by vocal criticism from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)), and pockets of Black voters worried about the Latino wave.  Republicans could gain a significant public relations boost in the Latino community if they appear to have taken a lead on implementing what is widely perceived as a new sort of ”amnesty” for illegal immigrants.   

     

Obama Drop in Polls …

Across the polling board, observers can’t help but notice a slight dip in Sen. Barack Obama’s numbers, particularly following his performance at the first Democratic Presidential primary debate in South Carolina.  Clinton still maintains a lead, with her numbers bumped up by a few on some key polls. 

Side note: Why we get caught up in poll watching is beyond us (for a love of the game, we guess) considering how polls further push, pimp and transform a supposedly democratic process into a multi-billion dollar political prostitution ring and black market.  Polls contribute to this unusually early campaign season, which prompts candidates to opt out of public financing and raise obscene amounts of loot, thereby leaving the cash-strapped out of participating, leading to the dominance of those who do have the money to buy influence. 

Back to the repercussions of Obama’s first debate performance - it wasn’t the strongest performance, therefore it is marked by persistent questions about experience.   True: Obama wasn’t the most seasoned on stage compared to the other candidates, most of whom have experience in Presidential debates.  The pre-debate hype and high expectations surrounding him didn’t help as he appeared to struggle on a few questions, especially on the topic of terrorism and security. 

The polls, following the debate, may reflect a small amount of trepidation among Democratic voters who once believed Obama was political Messiah.  He didn’t look as sure of himself in a debate as, say, he does when he’s delivering master speech performances before adulating crowds. It wasn’t a bad showing; but it wasn’t his best. Does this mean people aren’t feeling him?  Not necessarily – it just means that his book tour definitely ended and the groupies are stepping back for another assessment.   And there is the increasing concern that Obama is too ambigious, trying to have it both ways on a host of issues. 

It also shows that homeland security, terrorism and the geopolitical environment are still very much in the front of anxious minds, which is why – post-debate - peeps are a little worried that Obama may not be as decisive as they’d like.      

The Injustice of the Oxycontin Plea Deal …

Certainly, the punishment doesn’t fit the crime in the case of three current and former Purdue Pharmaceutical executives pleading guilty for misleading the public about Oxycontin addiction.  They will pay $634.5 million in fines, collectively, with the three executives (no longer working at Purdue) to pay $about $34 million of that amount.  It seems like a cushion of a deal compared to the vast multitude of African American men who get anywhere from 63 to 78 months for the sale of five grams of crack. 

The disparity in this is fairly ugly and downright unjust.  We don’t excuse the street corner sale of illicit drugs (which should warrant punitive measures) that terrorize our communities with addiction and violence. But it seems downright fishy and awfully foul that White male business executives who turned a yearly $1.2 billion profit off the sale of one of the most viciously addictive drugs on the street market – and continued pushing it despite knowledge of its dangers – would not suffer the same demise as Black men who are serving disproportionate sentences for less in an overcrowded prison system. 

Although the U.S. Sentencing Commission recently proposed an amendment reducing crack/cocaine sentencing 51 to 63 months, it does little in reducing the ghastly number of Black boys and men being held in jail for long periods of time for the pettiest offenses.  As if its done any good.  Obviously, it hasn’t.  But, this is the continuing saga of a misguided drug war which ultimately rewards obscenely wealthy manufacturers of illicit drugs – the true “drug lords” like Purdue – with fines and plea bargains while the corner pushers, addicts, whole communities and their families suffer. 

Purdue knowingly distributed an addictive drug that was actively traded on corners and made a serious profit while aware of the social and economic impact.  To us, that appears like the actions of a fully operational drug cartel – not the blunders of an unwitting corporation. In this case, Purdue was the cartel, making it increasingly easy for small-time dealers to push Oxycontin since it was readily and legally available.  There is just no other way to characterize this and plain insulting to portray it otherwise.  We can’t wait to expose the ignorance and racism of this one: because guilty, drug-cartel organizing White Purdue executives don’t wear crooked hats, bulkly t-shirts and chains means they’re less guilty?   Obviously, they hid behind corporate privilege, pretty much feeling nothing was wrong since it was under the guise of “best business practices” and legal operations.   In this case, once again, the drug lords got away while their underlings await incarceration for barely making a fraction of a percentile of what Purdue made on Oxycontin. 

Illtown Mayor Debate Lacking

The recent Philadelphia Mayoral debate was the battle royale of political debates, reminiscent of that old school, no-holds-barred, scrappy, beat down of townhall gatherings.  Where the candidates have at it and no one moderates audience response out of fear for call-&-response instigation.  Watching this debate, outsiders and those unfamiliar with Philly life would naturally wonder if this was the reason why Independence City is now one of the most violent in the nation.  Not at all – Philadelphians just tell it like it is with no promise of holding back.  Philly likes to keep it real and, most of all, they like to keep their politics real.  Sure, City Hall is rife with “pay-to-play” public policy, but at least Illtown residents admit to that sour fact of Brotherly Love life. 

Seriously though, this recent debate was symptomatic of something much darker than Illtown’s infamous cynicism.  It suffered from lack of ideas or an unwillingness to innovate.  It was policy stuck in time, so much so that the candidates resorted to petty references and blatant insults almost leading to physical brushes.  Not the kind of image you want for a town trying to manage an economic comeback in the midst of a horrific homicide wave. 

Congressman Chaka Fattah’s overly-Blacker-than-thou, over the top and, ultimately, trifling attacks on Councilman Michael Nutter reflected a man losing his cool when his entire reputation is staked on cool. But it also displayed Fattah’s nervousness about his 3rd place polling numbers, a crashing realization that his destiny may not be realized after a lifetime of public service – and that he may, after all that, have to go back to Congress and actually work.   Most of Philly’s unemployed would risk life and limb for a $165,000 annual salary to simply co-sponsor bills, huddle with Caucus buddies and ride the Hill subway in that mad dash to vote each day.  Yet, Fattah indicates that he’s bored with Hill life and ready to move on to that great grey building at Broad and Market where the skateboarders scratch the marble in a subtly anarchistic mooning of corrupt City Hall culture.   There is arrogance detected in that boredom, a politician implying that his political map is laid out and that he is not only Philly’s Favorite Son, but Philly’s Next Son who is destined to inherit it all.

That is proving problematic for Fattah, once a front-runner now trailing. 

The larger problem is that everyone on that stage debating has risen in a system they each pledge to reform.  They are products of the machine discussing how they are the best candidate to tear it down.  That will be pretty tough considering the machine brought each candidate to that point yesterday evening. 

The Intersection of Mental Health & Gun Control …

It is, to say the least, an incredible feat of political diddle when observing how the all-too-powerful gun lobby has managed to wiggle its way out of a national discussion on whether there is a need for tighter gun distribution restrictions.  Many thought the Virginia Tech tragedy would have presented that moment.  Yet, the silence on Capitol Hill is deafening; predictable from Republicans and scandalously opportunistic in the way Democrats are appeasing their conservative colleagues from the South and West. 

What has happened is a slick public relations deviation to focus on every other issue but the easy proliferation of deadly weapons in American society.  Instead, much conversation centers on the mentally ill and insane and how government should limit or restrict their ability to access guns.   However, steering the debate in that direction can present unintended consequences – there is a dangerous notion floating about that perhaps the vast majority of mentally ill citizens are not only ill, but are for the most part violent.  Which can have the potential of rolling back decades of research and progress in the arena of mental health.  It can also have broad and devastating implications for many struggling with mental health issues; it’s bad enough they are already stigmatzed. 

What’s not being argued is that there would be little to worry about if guns weren’t so readily accessible in the first place. 

Kickin’ it with the French …

In 2004, cats stateside actually bragged about the high voter turnout in the Bush v. Kerry smackdown, citing the fact that it increased by about 7 percentage points since the 2000 election and high voter registration rates (about 75%).  This, of course, sounds good for non-profit press releases like Rock the Vote, who must prove to corporate sponsors that they are actually doing something. 

But, it’s one thing to encourage a bunch of giddy high school seniors and college kids to vote by throwing marketing giveaways in their face … and a whole new game when it’s actually time for them to vote.  Do they actually go to the polls like they’re supposed to? Doesn’t seem like it based on voter turnout data since 1992:

 

2004			56.69%
2000			51.31%
1996			49.08%
1992			55.09%

Compare this to the recent Presidential election in France, and the sweat of national embarrasment begins to show.  Hard-lining conservative and first-generation French Nicolas Sarkozy smashed the opposition after turnout in that election soared to 85%.  That’s astounding in a country of 62 million and puts U.S. voter turnout numbers to shame. 

Still, we’ll need to keep a close eye on the young, firebrand Sarkozy given his harsh anti-immigrant stance (translated: keep the Africans and Arabs out) – despite his immigrant roots – and somewhat police-state edge.  However, he is reportedly an ardent supporter of affirmative action for low-income citizens which is encouraging.  Racial tensions in France are already showing signs of a resurface, reminiscent of unrest in Parisian suburbs in 2006.   

Sameness is Red, Flavors are Blue: Summing up the GOP & Dem debates …

What few, but us, are willing to talk about – particularly given MSNBC’s All American White-male dominated line-up - is the contrast in cultural flavor between the two first Democratic and Republican primary debates.  It’s too noticeable not to comment on, but conventional political wisdom has resigned to simply accepting it as a matter of fact.  To the contrary: it’s an important distinction because it’s a matter of national policy being determined and set by whomever sits in the White House.

Much of that will, undoubtedly, impact African Americans, many of whom live precariously on a thin economic string. 

That distinction also illustrates what demographic is most important to each party and how Red State/Blue State, close-down-the-middle the general contest will be.  The Dems held their debate at a Historically Black College/University – something unprecedented given the dominant political establishment constantly reminds the Black electorate that it has little say or impact in public policy.  

Off on a tangent here – indeed, this was a welcome diversion from the minstrel a-intellectualism of BET’s College Hill.  Whereas the finest, predominantly White institutions have managed to steer the likes of MTV away from their institutions and, instead, placed their socially challenged students into multi-city co-ed housing arrangements like “Real World,” Black colleges are so desperate for publicity (and BET so desperately lacking in creativity) that they would allow their institutions to be ridiculed in the most vicious way.  The debate at South Carolina State helped fight that to some degree.  This further underscores previous hints we’ve made about how curious it is that coverage of the Presidential race (including debates and speeches) is shamefully lacking on Black cable channels.  How telling that the DNC can facilitate a major primary debate on a Black college campus, but the CBC won’t approach either Radio One or Viacom to present its debate before major Black audiences. 

Back to the point: the South Carolina debate audience, for that matter, was very Black and the stage of candidates a refreshing collage of cultural flavor.  At least there was a women, a brother and a Latin brother.  The content may have been dry and predictable, but the symbolism (substance unknown) was somewhat encouraging.  Others may disagree, but hey – it was what it was. 

On the other hand, the GOP debate played itself out - comfortably – against the backdrop of very White and notorious Simi Valley.  The audience was rather … White.  We think we caught a glimpse of one other, but we’re not certain.  But, it was a canvas of pluralistic sameness - nothing against White people for being White, but there was a troubling message in the lack of diversity on stage and off.  It seemed more to MSNBC’s liking. And, yes, Politico.com, too which – we are noticing – also makes it clear that, despite its newness on the scene, it is making little (if any) effort to attract very competent Black writers and reporters who do quite a fine job of covering the political scene. No, instead, just like MSNBC the subtle signs posted display a sinister message: “People of Color Need not Apply.“   We’ll get into that later …

The candidates on the GOP stage all appeared the same, talked the same.  However, we dug Gov. Mike Huckabee – you may not agree with Huckabee, but you can certainly say that he’s a true believer in whatever he believes.  Straight no chaser, sincere and succint.  If pundits weren’t busy brown-nosing the All-Stars like insane McCain/unsure Guiliani/Manchurian Romney, objectivity would proclaim Huckabee a winner in that debate.  Huckabee, the small guy from Hope, AK – a conservative Baptist version of Bill Clinton with the same degree of likability.  He knows who he is and what vision he wants.  May not be the vision we want, but there’s little sell-out factor in this cat.

An annoying feature of that debate was the incessant reference to the late President Ronald Reagan.  Did they have any ideas of their own? Whereas we understand some deference was due to the “Gipper” since they were standing in his library, it showed the GOP is still locked in its past when it can craft no new message beyond famous Reaganism’s.  Blowing proverbial kisses at Nancy Reagan, the candidates tripped over themselves to see who could be the most “Gipper” than Gipper himself.  And, so, the vibe in the room felt more antique than the motionless Air Force One replica hanging overhead.   The GOP certainly fit its bill – it’s a Grand Old School Party.     

Obama Snubbing CBC?

Only time and campaigning will tell, but if this is true, it raises serious problems for both sides involved.  Reports Alexander Bolton in The Hill:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has failed to raise money for the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) even though it has been a year since he was asked to, and his main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination has done so, CBC members say.

CBC leaders asked Obama to hold a fundraiser for the caucus’s political action committee (PAC) a year ago but they have slim hopes that he will come through for them.

“; phpads_deliverActiveX(phpads_activex); //–>

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Obama’s chief rival for the nomination, held a fundraiser for the PAC in March last year at the home of Dan Leeds, a Washington venture capitalist.

First, this may expose a problem within the Obama camp that’s being cited quite fervently within the Black political community: the Senator isn’t relying on seasoned Black political expertise for his campaign.  African American politicos are pointing at the proverbial Sal’s Pizza wall screaming “Where the Black people at?” This latest issue confirms that perception to a degree, as it will be easy for Obama-detractors to claim that either he is out of touch with Black perspectives in America or he is too reliant on a largely White circle of advisors who would never acknowledge the critical importance of catering to the CBC.  But, then again, we figure Obama is smart enough to make his own decision with respect to that …

But, it doesn’t look good given his effort to make serious inroads within his own community.  It also doesn’t bode too well when he is a Member of that same group.  Like a classic divide-&-conquer scheme, Sen. Clinton picks up the pieces for her benefit.  We hope the CBC is savvy enough to see that dynamic being played out.   

Still, this begs the question: is Obama obligated to the CBC?  He may answer that question in the affirmative, citing the overall lukewarm response from the Caucus as a whole and the mounting aggravation of a traditional civil rights establishment constantly criticizing him at every turn.  In a bit of shrewd political calculation, he probably figures that he has no obligation to scratch their collective back if they refuse to scratch his.  Perhaps he simply became resigned to the fact that many of them would continue feeding into allegiances with the Clintons, and that it’s a lost cause to try and win over made-up minds. 

Much of it is also purely psychological, since being in the Senate feels light years away from the dynamics of the House.  There is little interaction with the other 41 Members in the Caucus who labor in the House, and much of this could be simply due to crossed messages and misinterpreted signals.  The CBC and Obama need to get those signals aligned because it could have breed unfortunate policy and political consequences for Black political development in the long run. 

What is discomforting is that it comes out now, that significant fissures within the Caucus – starting with the CBC/FOX debate – are showing in a big way.   If anything, it would be expected that the CBC and its lone star Senator running for President would be on the same page – obviously, that’s not the case.  Not to say that dirty laundry shouldn’t be aired, but the CBC maintains a rather stellar reputation for keeping itself fairly unified on key issues and the well-being of its Members.  How they let this spin out of control is confounding on some levels, yet predictable and crab-like on others.