Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Clintons Lose Virginia Governor's Race

  francislholland@yahoo.com

Click on Photo
for a Piece of Family History *

Cross-posted at NowPublic.Com.

Since I learned yesterday that Terry McCauliffe was trounced in his Democratic gubernatorial primary in Virginia, by a large margin, I've been thinking that the biggest losers in this are really Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton legacy.

Terry McCauliffe has been a big and high-profile financial and political supporter of the Clintons for years and particularly during last year's presidential primaries, when the Clintons sought to win on the basis that Barack Obama had a different skin color from the majority of the voters. (This is what Bill Clinton was pointing out to America when he said after the South Carolina primary that Jesse Jackson had won South Carolina too. The only significant similarity in this comparison between the Harvard educated US Senator and Jesse Jackson was their skin color.) Disagree if you will, but that's how Black people perceived it and Black people can account for thirty percent of the Democratic primary vote in Virginia.

I was a well-known online blogging supporter of Hillary Clinton until she and Bill began trying to use Senator Obama's skin color against him. After the Clintons' color-arousing appeals began, I was quoted in the Washington Post, saying,

"We are tired of Hillary Clinton telling America that we are less than American simply because we refuse to vote for her," said Francis L. Holland, an African American blogger." Ironically, the Clintons embraced us, and even embraced Pastor Jeremiah Wright for support during their impeachment scandal." Holland was speaking of the congressional trial that followed former president Bill Clinton's liaison with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. "She has forfeited the black vote for the foreseeable future with her color aroused appeals." WaPost
In other words, last year's race alienated a lot of Black voters from both Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Virginia has an enormous Black vote. Before Bill Clinton tried to color arouse the electorate in 2008, Black people might have turned out in larger numbers and supported the Clinton candidate just because Bill and Hillary said so. But after the color-arousing behavior of Bill Clinton in 2008, Black people in Virginia might vote AGAINST a candidate simply to punish Bill Clinton, who has never apologized for his behavior of last year.

Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post's "The Fix" (a white male blogger who never (ever?) quotes Black bloggers, but often quotes the two-year CIA "secret agent" trainee and homophobic Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga of DailyKos), Cillizza says in his post of today that among the losers in Virgina yesterday were:

The Clinton Legacy: Not only did McAulliffe, the national chairman for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, lose in his first run for elected office but so too did Adam Parkhomenko, the wunderkind who came to prominence as HRC campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle's assistant during the 2008 campaign. Parkhomenko, who was running for the 47th district House seat, wound up placing third behind winner Patrick Hope. Chris Cillizza

I understand that Black people are typically thirty percent of the vote in the Democratic primary in Virginia, so if they turn out in great numbers (particularly in a primary where only 5% of voters showed up at the polls) Black people can decide who the Democratic gubernatorial nominee will be. This year, I believe they decided NOT TO support the candidate whom Bill Clinton supported.

Get mad if you want, but if Bill Clinton ever wants to move the Black vote again in favor of a candidate, he should either apologize for trying to color-arouse the electorate in 2008. Or, he should stop "helping" candidates who run in districts that have significant Black populations, because his "help" is as caustic as acid.

As for Chris Cillizza and Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga, who admitted on June 6, 2006 at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco (audio tape) that he trained for two years to be a "secret agent" at the CIA, I really don't understand why Cillizza quotes Moulitsas Zúñiga so often without ever telling readers that Moulitsas Zúñiga was trained for two years in Washington, DC by the CIA. The Indictment of Markos C.A. Moulitsas ZÚÑIGA by Justice and History (Updated with Additional Information and Counts)

I also cannot understand why Chris Cillizza describes Moulitsas and DailyKos as "liberal" and "progressive" when Moulitsas is known to have written a letter opposing ALL, that's right, ALL gay service in the US military.

I think there's something very fishy going on between Chris Cillizza and Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga, and I suspect it may be related to the "highly secretive" Townhouse Group. (SourceWatch.Org.)

* * * * * * * * *
* Above, you see a photograph of me that links to a news source covering a significant family event, and I offer this to help put my opinions into context. Compare that to Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga: If you search the entire World Web (and I have), you will not find one single example of where Moulitsas Zúñiga has named even ONE member of his blood family. He refuses even to name the uncle whom he claims was once the education minister for the nation of El Salvador. So, I have had to research this man for myself and what I found will amaze and astound anyone who has only learned about Moulitsas Zúñiga from mainstream media "sources" like Chris Cillizza.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Express yourself! (But not at my expense. :)