The Clintons are wrong on Black Lives Matter

Staff Editorial

Last week, former U.S. President Bill Clinton lost his temper with a group of Black Lives Matter protestors while on the campaign trail for his wife and current presidential hopeful Hillary, supporting her hotly divisive comment in 1996 about gang members in urban areas being “superpredators.”

“You are defending the people who killed the lives you say matter,” Bill Clinton said, raising his voice above the protestors. “Tell the truth. You are defending the people who cause young people to go out and take guns.”

At the CT, we feel as though Black Lives Matter remains one of the most misrepresented, contested and prolific political movements today. BLM faces strong opposition by those who claim racial inequalities addressed by the campaign aren’t this generation’s fault, they don’t persist today or are the responsibility of Black Americans to solve.

In other words, some Americans who feel we’ve reached a “post-racial” society see BLM as unnecessary and counterproductive.

Still, though, if Hillary Clinton wants to do the right thing, as well as secure votes, her campaign needs to address the present-day issues that perpetuate the suffering of people of color and make serious strides to correct income inequality, systematic racism and an imbalanced law enforcement and criminal justice system.

While Hillary may rebuke her former statements and recant the phrase now, she and her husband continue to flip-flop on the laws enacted under Bill’s administration, most notably the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This legislation has contributed to the disproportionate incarceration of Black Americans, with a startling one-in-three Black men in the U.S. expected to be imprisoned in their lifetime.

To give credit where credit is due, however, recently Hillary has adopted a more sensible stance on reforming drug laws, and said, “It is really unconscionable that someone who uses five grams of crack-cocaine, compared to 500 grams of powder cocaine would face such disparate sentencing,” referring to the “War on Drugs” pushed by Nixon in 1971.

The above comment was made during the 2007 Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum.

Drug laws, with mandatory sentencing hugely dependent on the type of drugs in possession, have devastated communities plagued with addiction, primarily amongst people of color in inner cities ripe with gentrification.

But why the frustration with Black Lives Matter?

BLM has interrupted public appearances of candidates on each end of the political spectrum, going so far to say the Congressional Black Caucus hasn’t lent enough help to the cause. Representatives of BLM have toured universities around the U.S., including co-founder Opal Tometi just last month and scholar Cornel West in September at the Siegel Center at VCU.

Protesters have questioned Hillary’s donator rolodex, track record as Secretary of State, husband’s actions while in office and numerous other facets of her campaign; all criticisms largely greeted with hostility. Ironically, Hillary claims the vast majority of Black votes in the primary, evidenced by her 72-26 percent lead of non-white voters for Clinton over Sanders in early primary states.

The Clinton Campaign has been banking on the minority vote that Bill carried way back in 1992, when he pulled 87 percent of African American voters and 84 percent of their vote in ’96.

Coming into this election, Hillary anticipated a similar widespread support by minority voters. However, some big missteps in her handling of questions regarding race today, coupled with a growing number of African Americans switching over in the competition for the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders, have put her on the ropes.

Sanders is gaining traction with activist groups and minority voters after his handling of protests at his early campaign rallies, as well as mentioning Sandra Bland, his acknowledgement of BLM during televised debates and track record fighting for civil rights.

Could frustrations about Hillary’s dwindling delegate lead over Sanders – in part due to her crumbling foundation on these key voting blocks – be the cause of some outbursts towards BLM protestors? As these issues get brought closer to the forefront of the election, will Hillary shine or will she continue to falter?

At what point do we consider Bill and Hillary two separate people?

This has been a key question this election touching on nearly every aspect of Hillary’s campaign. She’s had to walk a tightrope between riding on the coattails of her twice-elected husband and sitting president Barack Obama, all the while distinguishing herself.

If Bill’s track record is under fire for placing undue pressure on people of color in the justice system, you would think Hillary would try to keep him from remarking on these key issues.

This might be what she instructed him to do, but the voice of the young woman at the campaign stop that grilled him on his crime bill got under his skin. We’re at a point where voters are trying to figure out who exactly they’d be electing, and continued patronizing by the Clintons isn’t giving them any insight.

So what does this all mean?

Hillary’s campaign is losing it’s grip on the long-though “gimme” nomination, and that Hillary herself is perhaps losing sight of how to appease minority voters because the politics of the ’90s don’t work in 2016.

Her pledged delegate lead following her eighth-consecutive loss this weekend in Wyoming has dropped to 250.

Should she ultimately be elected, Hillary would be the person in charge of mending the racial divides in our country. That concern can’t be ignored moving forward in this election.

Hillary can’t have another flustered outburst, and neither can her biggest cheerleader. If she wants to win the nomination and the general election, then she’s going to have to reconcile the past and be collected in the face of protesters. After all, she’s not running unopposed for the nomination.

Hillary might have to take a few moves out of Sanders’ playbook if she wants to appear presidential during public appearances, maybe by starting with a step back, or forward in the right direction.