Comments & Feedback

This is NOT a historical first with regards to a black person or a woman seeking the presidency. The REAL historical first is Shirley Chisholm back in 1972.

Clinton has been using Chisholm's legacy as a pawn with black folks and black women since one of the things she did as a junior senator is contribute to legislation honoring her. That's it.

Obama, on the other hand, has channeled her "Unbought and Unbossed" campaign into an appeal to the people, catered to the hopes of young people with complete audacity, and has painted himself as the Every Person Candidate. That's it.

Just as Chisholm did! Before Jesse Jackson, even!

It's no coincidence or surprise from either politician to give her lip service about what she did. I mean, I read these words from Chisholm and it sounds like something Obama's used in his speeches in almost the exact same words:

"You can be part of the system without being wedded to it," I say. "You can take part in it without believing that everything it does is right. I don't measure America by its achievement, but by its potential. There are still many things that we haven't tried — that I haven't tried — to change the way our present system operates. I haven't exhausted the opportunities for action in the course I'm pursuing. If I ever do, I cannot at this point imagine what to do next. You want me to talk to you about revolution, but I can't do that. I know what it would bring. My people are twelve percent of the population, at most fifteen percent. I am pragmatic about it: revolution would be suicide."

Chisholm's the one who paved the way. All these folks can spin Obama and Clinton as historical firsts and discard the importance of her run post-Civil Rights Acts era. I don't buy the "first with a chance" theory. The fact that she ran knowing that she may not win reflects more on the superficiality of the American people than it does on the merits of her campaign and her spirit. Junior Congresswoman vying for the ticket, all of that. People have thrown lip service in her direction and a few quick glances; but if they look at her ideals you can see so much of her in this season. So much, and yet not enough.

— Teocka

As a woman, I am really tired of hearing that I am expected to vote according to gender. As a "white" citizen, I don't vote according to race. As an intelligent human being, I will vote for the best candidate. For the first time in my voting history, I will be voting FOR a candidate that I believe will be a great president. In past elections, I have voted AGAINST the worst candidate.Obama is a statesman who has underscored his policies with integrity and honor. He is the human being that this country needs to heal nationally and internationally.He recognizes the problems and addresses them articulately.All of the Clinton "would shoulda couldas" are meaningless. There was simply a better candidate. Moreover, if her campaign had prevented Obama from becoming the next president, America would suffer from the loss.We'd just be voting AGAINST McCain.

— Donna Laba

I WAS a Republican. I WAS a Hillary supporter! I'm now an Independent... And I've learned to lose more and more respect for Mrs. Clinton... thanks to her actions and attitude!

Gee... If Mrs. Clinton WAS President... and the call came at three a.m.... it looks like she wouldn't answer it until 3:30 a.m. Is she EVER on time? How arrogant and self-centered can someone in public office be! It seems like she's putting off conceding as long as possible!

And I WAS, repeat WAS, a strong Hillary supporter! The more I got to know her, the more I realized that it was all about her, and politics as usual. What is she holding out for now? I think the media gives her a lot more credit than she desirves, too. She is now almost 45 minutes late for her speech... What's the excuse... waiting for something to happen to Obama?

— Lorraine McKenzie

Leave a comment ...

As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.

Stop Tracking

Back To Top