"Thots & Thoughts" is a column in which musings on dating, sex, race, religion, and politics all come together—from a bird's-eye view.
When it comes to criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I'm reminded of the way criticism is often leveled at Beyoncé, or “Bayoncé,” as Clinton has mistakenly called her.
In my eyes, Beyoncé is as close to perfect as this world is going to get. But no one is totally perfect. Now, I’m not in the business of speaking ill of my favorite Creole, but I can understand someone taking issue with select matters. Say, her being hyper-capitalistic. However, as is the case with Beyoncé, whatever legitimate gripes one might have about Clinton often gets lost in the noise drowning out what could be legitimate criticism.
Because Clinton elicits such visceral anger from her detractors, many look for any available reason to condemn her. The latest example of this would be people losing their damn minds because she mentioned that she keeps hot sauce in her bag during an interview with Power 105.1’s “The Breakfast Club.” Because she made this comment during a radio program that targets black people, some felt Clinton was pandering.
However, no matter what your uninformed faux politico or Donald Trump might tell you, Clinton has been talking about her love of hot sauce since the first Destiny’s Child album. Actually, she’s been talking about hot sauce since Girls Tyme. Clinton has mentioned her love of hot sauce to black and mainstream media outlets for more than two decades. So, to be clear, when it comes to her eating habits and the hot sauce she drowns her food in, she got that fire, she got that fire, girl, holla at HRC if you want that Oscar Meyer.
After some conceded just that, the outrage shifted to Charlamagne Tha God jokingly telling Clinton that her admission of her hot sauce habit on the show might seem like pandering. Clinton’s response was, “Is it working?” It was deadpan humor, but Clinton had a grin on her face. Why? Because it was a joke. You can either laugh or not, but to suggest that it connotes anything other than bad comedic timing is the kind of hyperbolic antics that I find headache-inducing. Clinton loves her hot sauce and there are plenty of folks out here that need to get drunk off some chill.
And since we’re on the subject of pandering, for the love of God, let go of Hillary Clinton dancing on Ellen. Clinton was appearing on a daytime television show in which she was asked by the host —who often makes dancing a central component of the telecast—and her black DJ to try the latest dance trend (to that audience, anyway). That’s why you do on daytime TV: silly-ass shit to relate to Americans who don’t really know a great deal about policy, but tend to be way too into the idea of voting for a candidate’s charisma. Like I told y’all before, the game is the game.
There are plenty of valid reasons to despise Hillary Rodham Clinton and rue the day she May become our nation’s first female president.
Moreover, there's the reality that, if Hillary Clinton didn’t go directly to outlets that appeal to black voters, she—and, for that matter, Bernie Sanders—would be accused of ignoring key Democratic voting blocs. You know, like Republicans. If anything, I find Sanders’ dismissal of southern voting states—which also happen to encompass large black populations—to be more offensive than Clinton dancing off beat and talking about hot sauce on a morning radio show.
Pandering is Mitt Romney asking black kids, “Who let the dogs out?” A better example of a politician being condescending is Rand Paul taking a field trip to Howard University and trying to lecture students on issues the students understood better than he did.
Make no mistake: this is not me declaring #ImWithHer. I don’t despise her as some of my friends do, but she’s not exactly my favorite candidate. For the record, neither is Bernie Sanders. As of now, I’m planning to vote for “Bayoncé.”
What I will advise, however, is that for those who detest Clinton and want to let it all out day after day, hour after hour, minute after minute on social media—shall you proceed? Yes indeed. Only, can you try to limit your criticisms to policy? There is plenty of reason for condemnation there.
I found her recent speech at AIPAC deplorable, and her follow-up comments on the Israeli and Palestinian in the last Democratic presidential debate, deplorable. When I watched her husband, former President Bill Clinton, defend her use of the phrase “super predator” and his 1994 Crime Bill by way of essentially summarizing the plot of New Jack City, I was reminded that it might be in my community’s best interest to never let that man anywhere near the White House again.
Just this week, the New York Times Magazine unveiled a cover story highlighting that Hillary Clinton is far more aggressive on foreign policy than any other Democrat to serve in office in recent memory. For all that talk of “judgment,” she bears a lot of the blame for why Libya is now a failed state and terrorist haven. There is also her failure to truly address Haiti and Honduras, and how the State Department, under her watch as Secretary of State, played roles in undemocratic regime changes that contributed to political and economic instability in both countries.
Bernie Sanders hasn’t done a good job of properly outlining how donations might’ve affected Clinton’s votes, but Elizabeth Warren did provide reason for added suspicion earlier this year. There are plenty of valid reasons to despise Hillary Rodham Clinton and rue the day she may become our nation’s first female president. I respect that stance, but if anyone is in the business of convincing people why they should not support her candidacy, lamenting on hot sauce and other poor examples of “pandering” ain’t gonna cut it.
You have far more to work with it than that. Get it to already. It might be too late to stop her from securing the nomination, but it could convincingly be the push to help elect those who can keep her line.