Al Sharpton and Cornel West go at it (candidacy, spokesman, accuse)

[Indentured Servant]

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

I'll always maintain that a media outlet who has to rely on an imbecile like Al Sharpton to fill a timeslot is a morally corrupt, and failed, entity. Which in my view speaks volumes about liberals and liberalism as a whole.

Ditto for political parties that have become the last refuge for disgruntled racist.

[AeroGuyDC]

Originally Posted by Indentured Servant

Ditto for political parties that have become the last refuge for disgruntled racist.

You're defending Al Sharpton and MSNBC? Awesome. I thought you made some good points on this thread....but now I really feel sorry for you. To defend Al Sharpton is to eliminate any credibility a person may have once had, as far as I'm concerned.

[Indentured Servant]

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

You're defending Al Sharpton and MSNBC? Awesome. I thought you made some good points on this thread....but now I really feel sorry for you. To defend Al Sharpton is to eliminate any credibility a person may have once had, as far as I'm concerned.

Fortunately I do not need your accreditation services. If I have a problem with Al Sharpton, its certainly not for the same reason that you do. That said, my point stands....ditto for political parties, and those that support them, that have become the refuge of disgruntled racist. They have no credibility in any matters that involve race.

[goldengrain]

Originally Posted by Indentured Servant

The question that I ask is this "what does Obama bring to the table, for black America, that your typical democrat does not already bring"? When people talk about what Obama does for black people indirectly....I say big deal, because that is what the Democratic platform does and has being doing. My position is not what has Obama done as juxtaposed with a Republican and a republican platform, but rather, what does Obama offer black people that say, Hilary Clinton would not and could not have offered us in terms of policy?

I dare say that Hilary could offer black people more than Obama could. Hilary was no Bill Clinton, but one of the reasons, I believe, that Bill Clinton was hated so much was because of the special relationship he had with black America....to the degree that he was seen as the first black president. That created fear in many whites, to note that there was President who at least vocally stood up for black people, apologized for slavery, regularly attended black churches, black events and so forth. His best friend was also a black man, Vernon Jordan.

The thing with Hilary is this.....black folks would have ASKED FOR SOMETHING, in return for the black vote. I watched a Primary debate or town hall that included Hilary and Obama. A black person in the audience asked a question concerning high black unemployment and how illegal immigration was impacting job prospects at the lower end and in construction (paraphrasing) for black people. Obama response was that he would not dignify a question that he said was "scape goating". Obviously he felt the need to EARN the Latino vote more so than the black vote, assuming that he was calculating in his answer, which all politicians are. Hilary, on the other hand, played to the black sentiment by saying that she recognized this impact on black employment and would address the issue if elected. Now....I tend to not trust politicians running for office by what they say they are going to do, because its usually BS. However, what one can glean is whose votes they are trying to EARN and in nowhere during the primaries or general election did it come across to me that Obama was trying to EARN the black vote. Hell ,he was throwing black leaders under the bus left and right and chastising blacks as well. For the life of me I do not know why racist do not live President Obama.

Yes, he just assumed the black vote was in the bag, and it was. He's a smart politician. He behaves just like a white man because, first and foremost, they are all politicians. I think part of Obama's problem, especially in the first term, is that he just did not have enough experience wheeling and dealing in the political arena to be effective.

[goldengrain]

Originally Posted by EdwardA

. . .

His response to that elderly Black man, I believe he was a vet was disgusting. He completely dismissed his concerns about his son-in-law's inability to make a living in the trades due to him being under cut by illegals. Hilary's response as you point out was far better. She empathized with the man. Much good it did her though Blacks voted for Obama 90%+ in the primary anyway.

I remember Sharpton, as well, claiming that illegals were taking away jobs that were traditional stepping stones for the poor to better themselves. My parents were share croppers, my dad was a coal miner, then a mechanic. It is not an easy life to come up from nothing. I ended up with an MBA.

So, Sharpton was starting to rally blacks against the illegals until he was called to the White House. After that he had a touring gig around the country, praising Obama and then he got his cushy job at MSNBC.

Self interest wins every time.

[Chimuelojones]

Originally Posted by highcotton

Stupid, idiotic fools have elected scumbag Al Sharpton...just like they have elected scumbag Obama.

Al Sharpton is in a Poltical office? That is big news...

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Indentured Servant

She DID have a plan....and that was to say things to EARN the black vote...or at least show respect for it, so she could win the Democratic primary in 2008. The black vote was needed for her victory and she knew she had to earn it given there was a charismatic black candidate in then Senator Obama. Just so you know, I was never a fan of Hilary Clinton. She, to me, is no Bill Clinton in regards to a black agenda.

So why not just post an example of this "plan " Hillary put forth ?

My point is not negated because the essence of my point is that she DEMONSTRATED a greater respect for the black vote than did Obama. She did not chastise. Thus, with greater respect comes the probability of greater leverage for black people to get the office to at least address some of the pressing concerns of the black community. The republicans do not respect the black vote or have needed it thus, blacks have no leverage to get them to address black concerns. Obama, and or his handlers, made a calculation that he did not need to pander or play to the black electorate, because many were already on board with support, due to the historical precedent and significance. also, the black electorate made the calculation that it was better that HE NOT appear to be championing our historical issues and grievances because whites would not put him into office if he did (which is an assumption that I totally agree with). If Obama had come out and said he would address issues like higher rates of black unemployment, poverty, discrimination and other such issues, he would have been toast.

WHAT ???


Obama Speech: 'A More Perfect Union' - YouTube

surely you remember this speech, it is considered one of his biggest and best. What about the speech at Morehouse ? The Trayvon Martin Speech ? the second state of the Union ?

Hence, we no longer ask for anything and to protect Obama, we have rationalized that we should not longer be asking things or expecting things from the Presidency, something we never rationalized before, because no president is the president of JUST BLACK AMERICA. Our legitimate struggle has been made illegitimate by a "post racial" mantra that gives the enemies of black people are argument to disprove that that such enemies actually exist and are impediments to black progress....none of which would be true if Hilary won the Democratic Primary.

It isnt true now, As i said before, you can continue to ask what you want of the President because that is your right as an american. Yes their are morons out there that claim that a black President means all black problems are not solved, but they are not the majority.

I was talking about in 2007-2008 Democratic Primaries. Not Post Obama winning the election.

I did a quick google search, i only saw that Hillary attended one of these events back in 2010.

That is because Hispanics were already with the Clinton's, like blacks originally were. They received no symbolic boost from the first black president and hence did not jump ship for symbolism for the symbolism did not benefit them.

If you ask me....black folk played themselves....or got played....with Obama. He has done much of what Bush has done.

Your point was that Barack was courting the Hispanic vote earlier, it obviously didnt work as he lost it by almost 30 points.

I guess my biggest problem with your argument is that it seems to me that you are arguing about How vocal Barack has been rather than what he has actually done, that you have more of a problem with there simply not being a visible outcry from the CBC. That does not mean things are not being done.

I see a man who expanded funding for GED programs, tuition for mothers, SBA loans for Minority small Business, Dept of Ag grants for rural communities, tried to improve the public transportation infrastructure,creating Race to the Top, expending Medicaid. Im pretty sure if you just went to your search bar and typed in "what has Barack Obama done for the black community", you would find a whole list of things i left out.

He doesnt call these Black programs, but they all disproportionately help the African American population.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

I'll always maintain that a media outlet who has to rely on an imbecile like Al Sharpton to fill a timeslot is a morally corrupt, and failed, entity. Which in my view speaks volumes about liberals and liberalism as a whole.

We feel the same of you and FOX.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by jazzarama

Nobody knows what Clinton would have done differently, but leftist leadership such as the CBC would have felt more comfortable criticizing her. I remember Rep. Emanuel Cleaver saying there would be a march on DC because of black joblessness if Obama weren't the prez.

What does criticizing matter, we are talking about what gets done.

[kidkaos2]

Originally Posted by Indentured Servant

Yep....I am down with Cornell and Tavis. My criticism of black folk is that we did not read the fine print when America elected a black President. The fine print is that from hence forth......the black struggle is null and void and will never again be recognized as a legitimate struggle, despite pervasive socioeconomic racial inequality.

If it wasn't recognized then why is the topic of this thread a segment on a national television show precisely about the black struggle? Responding to a post about a televised conflict between two national figures in the black struggle to say that the black struggle isn't recognized is irrational.

Plus, the fact that black folks did not hold Obama feet to the fire, like we have done with other Presidents about this condition of inequality, means that we cannot hold future presidents feet to the fire going forward.

Sure you can. When have people ever been consistent in how they treat politicians? Both sides are guilty of letting their side get away with things that they call the other side to task for doing. Just like Obama reversed the "Republicans'" welfare changes soon after getting into office without every mentioning that it was the husband of his own Secretary of State and a Democrat President who was the one who signed those changes into law.

We cannot refuse to ask Obama "what are you going to do for us" and then attempt to ask that question to future presidents, in this representative republic.

You should refuse to ask anybody that question. Nobody should do anything for you. Do something for yourself. It isn't the black struggle if your "struggle" consists of asking for government assistance. Any lazy ingrate can do that. If you want to win your struggle, then go out and struggle.

Is this not a representative form of democracy where politicians are elected to REPRESENT the will and interest of the people? Are not black people both American and people?

In theory, yes. But those times are long past. Once congress switched from being a limited term of public service into being a career, representing the people who elected them became a thing of the past. How does someone who has been living in high society in Washington DC for decades represent the interests of blue collar workers a thousand miles away? These lifers haven't held a job and lived life among the regular people in years.

Thus, why do some people say "he is not president of black people, but all of America"......does that mean that black interest are not part of "All of America" or is it that they know America would have never tolerated or elected such a president? I say if you cannot represent the people....then what is your use?

Your sophistry doesn't work. If the black people are part of all of America then so are the brown, yellow, red, and white people. So whatever you do especially for black people is by definition not representing the rest.

Now....that having been said....I am not a proxy for the RIGHT. Not wanting Obama does not mean that I want the Republican choice or option....because I don't.

It's too bad you choose government handouts and special exceptions over real economic opportunity for all Americans and a colorblind society.