If Bush* can become President, why not Braun or Sharpton?

[Q]

- In scanning the debate threads, one common theme arises time and again: "Sharpton is saying the right things but he "can't" win". They say he has 'too much baggage' and that he could never be elected president. The same basic argument comes up about Braun.

- But if a drunken, coke-snorting, do-nothing liar can become president, anyone can. (He even has an arrest record).

- Have you noticed that ALL Black Leaders throughout recent history - from MLKjr to Jesse Jackson - have been systemically smeared and character assassinated in the media and by Republicans? It's no accident or coincidence or conspiracy theory. Black leaders have been pilloried in the press for things that have been routinely ignored when done by White politicians like GWB*.

- Democrats have been somehow convinced that Blacks and women can't become president. Why? Because the 'other side' wouldn't tolerate it? Well...they don't vote Democratic anyway. I believe Democrats and third parties would turn out in droves to vote for these candidates.

- It's a self-fulfilling prophecy to say that Braun or Sharpton can't become president.

[HawkerHurricane]

1. They lack some things Bush* has.

A Father who used to be President.
Billions of dollars they didn't earn.
A party willing to ignore problems.
A majority in the Supreme Court.
A lap dog press.
I could go on.

[leetrisck]

2. We want to act like anyone can grow up to

be president - maybe in some ways that is true. Please note though what happens when they do. Americans supposedly admire the ole pull myself up by the bootstraps bit but look what happens when someone does that and Clinton is a good example. The "no-name" from "nowhere" beat the "titled" and it did not go over well. Somehow, we act like someone named "bush" (just an example, there are others) who inherited everything (old money you know)is entitled to it. It's as if those who come out of nowhere are not deserving.

[mhr]

3. Media Support and 200 Million Dollars for Reelection

'nuff said!

[rjbcar27]

4. Simple - They're black.

There's simply too many people in the US unable to accept a black president.

Sad but true I feel.

[Q]

5. Why wouldn't DEMOCRATS vote...

...for a qualified Black or woman nominee? Are you saying the same type of bigotry exists in the Democratic party as the Republican party?

- The Dem party has a much larger voting base than the GOP....but most of them don't vote. Perhaps they would finally turn out if something other than a White Bread, corporate candidate was offered?

[birdman]

7. Opposition to Sharpton has nothing to do with racism

He has a rather disgraceful history of race-hustling and
anti-Semitism and blackmailing the Democratic Party and
then endosing slimeballs like Al D'Amato. Not everyone is
willing to ignore that and it has nothing to do with bigotry.

Tawana Brawley ? Ring any bells ?

[Q]

9. Well...the RWingers would agree with you...

...but you ignored the premise of this thread. The RWingers main complain against Sharpton is not Brawley...although some continue to use it against him. They 'complain' that he won't let 'racial wounds' heal. That is...he continues to fight when Blacks are filled full of holes for reaching for their wallets. Sharpton was an ACTIVIST. RWingers hate all activists...especially if they're black.

- Yet...Bush's* many corporate and personal crimes have been covered up. They don't seem to matter.

- But What about Braun? Let's face the facts: she's not considered because she's BLACK.

[birdman]

11. Braun couldn't even hold her Senate seat

and her term was plagued by scandal.

You can't separate Sharpton from Brawley. His history,
not his color, is why he'll never be President. You can't
defend Sharpton by saying "What about Bush?". That's irrelevent.

[Padraig18]

21. Your version of the 'facts' are wrong.

Braun;s color has nothing to do with why she can't win; I'm in Illinois and I *LIKE* CMB, but I know as well what her baggage is, and it isn't pretty. Racism has nothing to do with CMB( as far as IL goes), because the Dems elected her, then didn't re-elect her.

They would crucify her, and America will agree (in large part) and hand Karl Rove some more nails.

CMB is toast, and so is AS.

[gottaB]

64. The last time you brought up Braun's baggage

You backed down from one claim and rested on another.

What was the other allegation that concerned you, fraud, was it? I believe that's completely unsubstantiated for one thing, and for another it's completely dodging the point. You can't politically disentangle these allegations from the overtly racist smear campaigns that have been launched against her.

And a final point, when you raise the issue of her election loss (which must have been a real bummer for you) and you attribute that to her baggage, you have to keep in mind that some of that same mudslinging went on in her campaign against Dixon I think it was in 1992. So I'm not sure how her one loss supports your argument that the baggage in and of itself is sufficient to disqualify her.

[Padraig18]

82. The Medicaid fraud was and *is* a big issue.

Just because it didn't bother me a great deal personally doesn't mean it's not a big deal. I can practically see Karl rove salivating uncontrollably when he envisions a ticket with CMB on it; every time the issue of health care arose, can't you see the obvious smear? :eyes:

She's cabinet-level or ambassadorail-rank material in a new administration, at best; no use crying over spilt milk.

[gottaB]

84. I've seen the obvious smears already

I've seen the worst of it from Rush and his minions, and I've seen the more insidious forms from so-called neo-liberals.

And I've seen people from Peoria of all places say "what's the deal?" and then shrug it off.

Because what is this baggage? An allegation that she and her siblings failed to disclose some of their mother's assests while she was receiving medicaid? Well, eventually all the assets were disclosed and the money was paid, so it never amounted to fraud, only an allegation of fraud, and if you were going to look at it objectively, on behalf of the government, you'd have to say it was a concern over a possible failure to fully disclose assests, because to say it was fraud you'd have to produce some kind of evidence of intent.

So, yeah, her opponents are going to impugn her motives and character and call her a fraud, but for most voters it's moot. Compared to the actual, monumental frauds perpetrated by Bush and the gang, it's flat out ridiculous.

[maha]

67. Not to mention Crown Heights.

Some of us haven't forgotten. Looks like Sharpton has done a masterful job of cleaning up his image, but he's still Sharpton.

[rjbcar27]

8. I just don't feel that it's time yet.

I'm sure that there's bigotry within the Dem party. Just because one calls themself a democrat doesn't mean that they are free of prejudice.

[Q]

12. When WILL it 'be time'? 200 years from now?

- I think that's a copout. Someone like Braun or Sharpton could pull in enough votes to win...from the Democratic base and third parties. Perhaps they aren't 'corporate' and white enough for the NeoDems?

- Has the Dem party simply become a reflection of the GOP?

[maha]

70. Are you saying we must like a candidate BECAUSE he or she is black?

So happens I like Mosley Braun but would not vote for Sharpton if he were the last candidate on earth. So does that make me a racist? Or picky?

The real issue is that excellent African American candidates still have a hard time coming up through the ranks of local politics. Therefore, the "pool" of nationally recognized African American politicians is artifically small, and the number of African American candidates with the background and experience to handle the job of POTUS is just about nil. This is because of the white racist power structure, of course, but facts is facts. (As much as I like Mosley Braun, I think if she were in the Oval Office she'd be eaten alive.)

[charlie]

14. In 1988

"What does Jesse want?" was a common media refrain (even used on a Newsweek cover) when Jackson scared the pants off everybody with his strong primary showings. It was bizarre to hear establishment voices accuse a major presidential candidate of ulterior motives, and so openly express disbelief that a black man was actually mounting a competitive run for the office.

[Q]

16. Exactly...strong Black leadership scares...

...the pants off of too many Americans. This is why the media and many on the Right use their PAST against them. Yet the media was unwilling to bring up these kinds of things against Bush*...who was arrested for drunk driving and had a trail of crooked dealings...including insider trading.

- MLKjr was under investigation for being a commie sympathizer and worse. Certain elements in our society WILL NOT allow a strong, popular Black Leader to gain a foothold in America.

[Flaming Meaux]

41. Sharpton is too divisive a figure.

in the eyes of too many people, and CMB, althought likeable, doesn't project that 'iron lady' thing that I think a woman candidate must project in order to win. My opinion - not backed up by anything, just my impression.

I think the right black candidate can win, but he or she hasn't come forward yet. Imagine Lawrence Fishburne, Cuba Gooding Jr., or a younger version of Morgan Freeman or James Earl Jones (the voice alone would elect him) playing a high-powered politician in a movie, and that's the kind of black candidate who can win.

My biggest fear is that Sharpton might run a spoiler campaign if people piss him off enough. Fortunately, I don't see that happening; heck, I can see him speaking at the convention getting everybody all fired up. The way he's going, he might just get a meaningful job in the new administration - wouldn't that be something.

[maha]

71. Agree n/t

[Terwilliger]

74. more or less...but don't let the party off the hook

the party wouldn't accept a black nominee...no matter what they thought about the chances of that nominee winning the election

[Racenut20]

6. You already gave all my answers, but here we go again.

They are the wrong color.

They don't have $200,000,000.00

And a media to show us their "good 'ole boy" swashbuckling charm.

But If I were to run for President, I would ask Al Sharpton to write my speeches.

[0rganism]

10. Trick question! Bush* is a republican, ergo he can be president

Like Reagan and Schwarzennegger, Bush* is qualified for political office solely because he is a republican, and republicans own the mass media. The newsmedia is instigating self-fulfilling prophecies, by proclaiming certain things to be "common knowledge" and "conventional wisdom" without adequate backup. For instance, it's common knowledge that Gray Davis ruined the California economy, that a pack of soreloser women were trying to smear poor innocent Ahnold, and bush* is a strong moral leader.

Consider also, Clinton was on the GOP shit list from January of 1993 onward. But only after deregulating telecom in 1996 was he smeared to all hell, in the press. The various artificial scandals were treated as secondary until then, and for the most part he did his job above the direct taint of scandal.

But now we have a different situation. The mass media is consolidated firmly in the hands of rightwingers. Would they hesitate to make Tawana Brawley (sp?) THE campaign issue, instead of focusing on current issues of global importance? Not in my book. Whoever gets the Democratic nomination had better have a spotless prior record, because we're not in Kansas anymore. The Democratic candidate is going to have to swim upstream against a strong current of "conventional wisdom"(tm).

For this reason, I have some of the same sorts of misgivings about Clark's candidacy, and Kerry's, that I do about Sharpton's and Braun's. I've already seen the propagation of various slander about Clark, most insidious because it's drawn from a bit of truth, and the temptation to conflate John Kerry's Vietnam record with Bob Kerrey's would be hard for a rightwing talkinghead to resist. Kucinich has baggage from Cleveland that will be hard to shake, and his recent position reversal on abortion will be called into question. So far, Dean is coming across as the least-tarnished by the media, but that doesn't mean he won't get the smackdown after the nomination. $200 million buys a lot of trashtalk from anyone, and the bushies get bargain basement rates from their regular whores.

Remember: this is the nation of lost memories, where Attention Deficit Disorder is the predominant lifestyle. It's entirely possible that NO Democratic candidate can win, once the press gets ahold of him/her. But it likely to be courting disaster to run someone with established scandals in their past.

That said, the thought of Al Sharpton debating the shrub does fill me with mirth. There wouldn't be talk of sighing or fashion colors deciding the debate. After tonight's debate, I'm convinced that Al could slap bush around with that donkey like nothing I've ever seen or heard before.

[Q]

15. Dems had the same type of 'Brawley' issues to use against Bush*...

...but they failed to use them.

- You're right about RWingers owning the media...but that shouldn't prevent us from running a Black or woman. Remember...RWingers will use that media to destroy ANY Dem candidate...no matter the color of their skin.

- We're allowing the Media to choose our candidates FOR us...out of the fear of the issues they will use against them. And here we have a 'president' with a freaking arrest record.

[maha]

73. To an extent, yes, but ...

"We're allowing the Media to choose our candidates FOR us...out of the fear of the issues they will use against them. And here we have a 'president' with a freaking arrest record."

Sharpton has more baggage than just an arrest record. He has a long record of deception, race-baiting, back-stabbing, hate-mongering, and exploitation of other peoples' tragedies for his own purposes. He is not a nice man. He's cleaned up his image considerably in the past couple of years, and maybe he's reformed, but maybe he hasn't. I don't trust him as far as I can throw him.

[JNelson6563]

13. If Bush can pResident, why not me?

Because I am not rich, well-connected or a white male.

Julie

[Q]

17. A Sharpton quote from a fellow DUer...

downstairsparts  (409 posts)
Mon Oct-27-03 02:24 AM

Sharpton: the rich man has a lot of baggage too
only he can pay somebody to carry it for him."

- There's a lot to be said about this quote...as it applies to the baggage of those like Bush*. He PAID others to carry HIS considerable baggage for him.

- It's telling that in America so many people are against candidates like Sharpton for their 'activism'...but won't consider voting for them even though that activism is still needed in racist America.

[maha]

89. I don't oppose Sharpton for his color or his activism.

I oppose him because of his very shoddy past. Tewana Brawley ain't even half of it.

[Q]

18. What about Braun?

- Let's face the truth: America is 'not ready' for a Black or a woman president...not because of their lack of qualifications...but because of the color of their skin and sexism.

- Braun is much more qualified than Bush*.

- America still carries the shame of racism and sexism while pretending to be 'enlightened'.

[CWebster]

19. because you know what we do to our prophets.

Sharpton is too real and represents too much of a threat from the outside.

He knows the score and he knows why it is important that he use his gifts to mobilize.

[ShaneGR]

20. If Bush can be President, why not Michael Jackson?

After all, he's black! As good Democrats we should support blacks ahead of all other candidates, even if we don't think they can win the general election.


TRANSLATION: It has nothing to do with race Q, it has to do with who can actually win and who cannot.

Sharpton is funny, but his past isn't exactly a shining beacon of hope.

Same goes for Braun, who was knocked out of her Senate seat after some sexual harrassment and campaign violations hit the front pages.

[Q]

22. Straw man argument: Michael Jackson isn't running for president...

- And your arguments against Sharpton and Braun are just plain silly and without foundation. You're helping to smear these people without offering any proof...just what you've 'heard' in the same media trying to smear their characters. You're reinforcing the same sterotypes.

- In fact...you're arguing FOR those who don't want a Black or woman in high office. It's ALL about racism...and it's your type of willful ignorance that helps perpetuate this scourge on America.

- You continue to use their past against them. Yet...Clinton AND Bush* had much shadier pasts than both of them...but that didn't stop them from becoming president.

[JohnKleeb]

23. Keep in mind Q no one said a Catholic could be president either

but they were wrong :D way wrong. I like Sharpton and Mosley-Braun although they arent my personal favorite black politicans, like for me that would be John Lewis, John Conyers, Charley Rangel, Barbara Lee. Now let me get you a quote should help you out.

"Some men see things as they are and say, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and say, 'Why not?'"
Robert F. Kennedy, after George Bernard Shaw
I agree with that and thats why I am a progressive, I wanna know why not. We will have that day soon I think, its sad that this America this beacon of Freedom to so many has had so little diversity in the oval office, one Catholic and the farthest east our guys get in their ancestry is Germany, So like my candiate Kucinich who is from the same region on one side as I am is kinda like how Jack Kennedy was to the Irish Catholics 43 years ago, its not why I support him but damnit it feels good to share that but the issues, and the man's hopes are why, but do I like that hes descended from the Balkans, yes. Its sad really Q.

[Q]

26. I'm bringing up Braun and Sharpton...

...in particular because they happen to be candidates. There are scores of Blacks and women that would make wonderful leaders on many levels.

- My point is that they're targeted for their 'pasts' and made to seem unelectable because of it. At the same time...the shady pasts of other (white or corporate) candidates aren't made an issue. Why is that?

- Bush* has the shadiest past of any candidate in recent memory. Yet...he was given a free ride by the American media AND the Democratic party. But when it comes to Black leaders like Jesse Jackson, Sharpton or Braun...both the left and the right use their pasts against them.

[Padraig18]

28. "...Why is that?...."

Because life isn't fair, and many Americans are *still* idiots on the subjecty of race; that said, they have one vote just like everyone else.

Short answer.

[JohnKleeb]

34. Dude you know as an Irish Catholic you cant let that get to you

Yes I know the American voters are prejudiced, I should really consider conducting a social science test, make up two candiate "John Smith" and "John Kovalicik" ask the people who they would vote for. Its saddening but the persecution is still wrong, and we must work to correct it. Now I know ethnic background isnt like race for some but I am told part of the reason why my candiate is unelectable is his last name, such a pity honest to god really being that this America wont accept a man of Croatian blood, now if you excuse me I am gonna go change my last name to my Ellis Island name and maybe god willing my first name to like how it is in the old country, no not Ireland, to Slovenia and Slovakia I go. Yeah I am an ethnic nut :D but you know, its quite sad.

[Padraig18]

42. It's *very* sad, indeed! n/t

[JohnKleeb]

44. Yes it is

I know a bit of history and Al Smith lost the traditional Democratic South because he was a Catholic. When Kennedy ran in 1960, he was attacked on his faith.

[JohnKleeb]

30. Youre so right

I agree completely with you. Why is that, you know I dont know why, but I tell you, its horrible, especially with like Bush's history and shit. I get your point completely, hopefully someday we will move beyond this. Neither of those two are my chosen candiate but I like Carol and always like hearing what Sharpton has to say.

[Q]

32. Given the many arguments against a Black President...

...one must ask why a Black or woman shouldn't be asked to run for Vice President?

- We have to start somewhere.

[JohnKleeb]

36. of course

Youre right Q, remember that Shaw quote.

[gottaB]

66. About those "Campaign violations"

Braun's campaign financing was scrutinized by the FEC, the IRS, and the US Senate, and in the end it amounted to a $311.12 discrepency.

And here you are repeating it as if it's some kind of disqualifier! Are you trying to discourage people from donating to her campaign? Because that's one reason unfounded allegations of this sort get repeated in the press.

There are several candidates in this race right now who have been caught up in minor campaign funding scandals. Serious violations, too. Would you care to disqualify them as well?

(The sexual harrassment charges btw had to with a campaign staffer, and not Braun. That person no longer works for her. It hardly seems relevant to presidential campaign.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. There Were Polls In 95 Showing Colin Powell Beating Clinton.....

I doubt Colin Powell could have got the R nomination though ....

When the nation elects a non majority caandidate he or she will be perceived as a centrist.....

[LeahMira]

25. Manifest Destiny...

In scanning the debate threads, one common theme arises time and again: "Sharpton is saying the right things but he "can't" win". They say he has 'too much baggage' and that he could never be elected president. The same basic argument comes up about Braun.
- But if a drunken, coke-snorting, do-nothing liar can become president, anyone can. (He even has an arrest record).

I don't think the general electorate looks at Shrub's arrest record. I think a sizeable number of citizens still have what I call the "pioneer mentality." They don't want to be governed at all really. They deeply resent anyone who is perceived as someone who will limit their doing whatever they please or taking whatever they want. Shrub is white, Christian, and a "cowboy." Whatever he was, he is now one of them. History, shmistory.

[Q]

29. But yet they would 'look' at a Black's 'arrest record'...

...and use it against them. This isn't a 'pioneer mentality'...it's willful ignorance and character assassination of those they don't want in power.

- Bush* was given a free ride because he is among the white, ruling class. It's not much more complicated than that.

[incapsulated]

27. Powell could have won

If he ran in the last election.

Well, if the rethugs didn't succeed in totally destroying him, which is exactly what they where gearing up to do when he was considering it.

But he decided to be a lapdog for a Bush, again.

I just don't understand him at all, honestly.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. I Think Colin Powell Is Conflicted

If he went to the selectsmart or political compass site he would find his views closer to many of the mainstream Democratic candidates than Bush....

[incapsulated]

37. Remember the Republican Convention?

When he lectured the slackjawed rethugs on how they are against affirmative action but for corperate welfare?

Now he has squandered the very good standing he had internationally by being a mouthpiece for all of their lies.

It's like he wants to disgrace himself or something.

I'm telling you, before all this I would have voted for him, even if he was more right of center than I liked. The possibility a black president was, and is, that important.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. He Said He Was A Rockefeller Republican...

which would put him to the right of Kucinich but to the left of Lieberman and right where folks like Wes Clark and Howard Dean are....

I stand by my statement that a mainstream candidate regardless of his race could mount a competititive race although I ackowledge racism still exists...

[incapsulated]

52. Powell was unique, though

He was a nationally known and respected figure. A General in a war we "won". And, especially, someone not really identified with either party or Washington "politics" (even though he was steeped in politics). After the Clinton years and the partisan wars, that was very appealing. He was a black candidate that I could firmly believe the american people would accept and polls at the time backed that up.

But that was an unusual situation. It's not that I don't believe that a black candidate can't run and win, just that the conditions that would need to be met would still be very different than for any white candidate and the bar would be extremely high.

[Silverhair]

31. Because they scare HELL out of the center voters.

Elections are decided by the swing voters, not by the base of either party. With the two sides being roughly equal, CMB or AS would scare the pants off of enough center voters to give the otherside a landslide victory.

Do you think the center voter really wants to pay reparations? That would quickly become an issue. AS is on the record as supporting reparations. I haven't been able to find where CMB is on that issue.

[Q]

33. But elections COULD BE decided by inspiring those who don't vote...

...to finally come to the polls and vote for someone other than the standard white bread candidate.

- I think it's a myth that elections are determined by 'swing' voters. In reality...elections are determined by those who DON'T VOTE.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. I Think You Are Ignoring Newton's Third Law Of Motion...

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction...

A mobilization on the left or right will only energize the other....

A mainstream non, threatening African American, Asian American, woman , etcetera could run a competitive race...

[Q]

40. Hmm....that sounds familiar...

"Democrats are fearful of being branded "class warriors" in a war the other side started and is determined to win. I don't get why conceding your opponent's premises and fighting on his turf isn't the sure-fire prescription for irrelevance and ultimately obsolescence."
-Bill Moyers
 
- Democrats continue to be victims of their own fear...and how the 'other' side perceives them.

[Padraig18]

43. ummm

Where is there any proof that those who don't vote do so out of any sense of 'discontent'; isn't it equally possible that they don't vote because they think that those of us who *do vote* do an acceptable job of selecting our leaders?

[Q]

45. Haha...

...sorry...but only in Oz does that make any sense.

- My theory is more than likely more plausible than yours...given the current horrible state of the union and that the Democratic party has abandoned their base for coroporate whoredom.

[Padraig18]

53. Hmmm..

You simply dismiss the proposition out of hand? Why is that? As I said, there is no evidence that my theory isn't correct, and I've heard (anecdotal) many, many people say as much.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

88. The E-m-p-e-r-i-c-a-l Reserarch Is On Your Side

The seminal study on voters and non-voters show there would be no significant difference in electoral outcomes if everybody voted:

http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/publications/par/July1999/HightonWolfinger.html

[Iverson]

91. e-m-p-i-r-i-c-a-l

... but thank you for not writing "semenal."

[Flaming Meaux]

46. Which is why it doesn't pay to dismiss Sharpton or CMB

We want them getting people fired up at the convention for the guy who wins with a mere plurality of delegates. They can do that, IF we don't blow them off. The way things are going, we can have three or four candidates with 20% or so of the delegates apiece. What happens in Boston then? How do we keep the others on the team when 70-odd percent supported someone other than the nominee?

That last part, keeping the honorable mentions on the team, is where people like Sharpton come in. Heck, he got me fired up last night.

[Q]

47. Plus...there's the added benefit...

...of candidates like Sharpton and Braun bringing up issues the other candidates are afraid to talk about.

- If Dems will only vote for the white bread, corporate canididate for president...the very least they can do is open up the field by running a Black or Woman vice president.

- Or...we could continue to allow the Republican party and the media to determine our nominees.

[Silverhair]

48. That also cuts both ways

There are nonvoters on the right too. Anything that further motivates one side will also further motivate the other side's turnout. The swing voter still decides things.

[Q]

49. The 'swing' voter is a myth...

...devised by the GOP and NeoDems as a rationale for their movement to support corporate interests over the welfare of the people.

[Padraig18]

55. A 'myth'

Care to show some demographic evidence supporting that contention?

[Silverhair]

50. McGovern's base was highly energized.

I remember the McGovern campaign. Vietnam was raging and the base was super energized. McGovern won ONE state & DC.

Goldwater's base was energized too. Very much so. Look what happened to the Reps in 64.

SWING VOTERS IN THE CENTER DECIDE THE ELECTION. THAT IS A FACT OF LIFE. GET USED TO IT.

[JohnKleeb]

54. On McGovern

You are aware that Nixon was a centrist somewhat, no Rockefeller republican but far from a Reaganite.

[Padraig18]

57. Absolutely

And when asked to decide between a centrist and a leftist, the American people spoke with an umistakably-clear voice about which they preferred, even though many Nixon voters held their noses when they cast their votes.

[JohnKleeb]

58. Yes and Bush is no centrist

So comparing any of this to McGovern is kinda dumb in a way, being that Bush is a rightist.

[Silverhair]

60. True, but...

If we go further to the left than he is to the right, WE LOSE. And CMB and AS, are waaaaay left. They make GWB look like a centrist. AS is on record as demanding slavery reparations. How do you think that will go with the center?

[JohnKleeb]

68. I dont support Sharpton

For the record. I thought CMB was more of a social liberal and somewhat conservative economically. Hes pretty far right imo.

[Silverhair]

59. I was there, I remember.

At the time I volunteer worked in the local county Dem office. I remember both Nixon and McGovern very well. (For that matter I also did volunteer work in the local JFK office in 60.) I also felt from the start that McGovern was doomed. Even then I knew that elections are decided by the center and that McGovern was scaring the center.

[Padraig18]

62. Yes

I believe that people are inherently conservative, and that liberal thinking and behavior are more 'learned' behaviors/attitudes; that being said, since many, many voters aren't big 'thinkers', leftist/ultra-liberal candidates alienate far more voters than they attract, in general.

[Silverhair]

63. Complete agreement.

I hadn't though of it in those terms, but I think you are correct.

[birdman]

51. The non-voters are a dry well

We hear this all the time but it's a myth.

Yes, about half the people don't vote but it's because
they don't think politics are relevent to them and they
don't follow the issues or the news. They're not going
to change and all of a sudden rush to the polls if they just
get the opportunity to vote for (fill in favorite outsider
candidate - eg Sharpton, Kucinich, Ross Perot etc) _______________.


These people aren't waiting for somebody to come along and
address their issues. They don't have any issues and no
candidate is going to change that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. Bingo-Check The Link On Post 88

NT

[Terwilliger]

78. See? I've told people this is the base of it...simple racism

[jobycom]

56. Because there aren't enough Democrats and third partiers to win

If you combine all the Democrats and third party voters together, they still have to get the middle-roaders (those who like to call themselves "independents" but who are far from independent when it comes to making up their minds). So even if all Democrats and third partiers voted for either candidate, as you suggested, that would just about counter the Republican/Right Wing vote, and the moderates would decide.

Bush didn't get elected by campaigning as a right wing drunken illiterate with a criminal record, he got almost elected by campaigning as a moderate centrist uniter who would end the politics of partisanship. All those tactics the right wing use to keep Bush from appearing in front of a microphone are not just meant to keep the idiot from telling more offensive jokes or demonstrating that he's a buffoon, but are also meant to keep him from answering allegations from the Democrats-- he appears above it all. So the Democrats say "Bush lied to start a war and has driven the economy into the ditch," and Bush's spokespeople say "President (sic) Bush does not comment on partisan issues," and Bush does not even get asked the question to his face, so to the public Bush is above partisanship.

The point of that obvious observation being that you win by being in the middle, even if you aren't. Braun and Sharpton are too honest to play that game (and if they did they wouldn't get the third party vote, anyway) and so they appear partisan and opinionated. To those of us who pay attention they appear right, but to that mindless mass of "independents" (sic), they appear to be special interest candidates.

That's why they won't win. It's not their color. Powell could win. Harold Ford had a chance in the future but might have blown it by his floor fight last year (though he's young enough to recover). And it's not Braun's gender-- Clinton has a decent chance, and I believe one reason that Bush appointed Whitman to the EPA was to destroy a potential rival (and to punish her for not liking him). It's because Braun and Sharpton say "There are issues here that you are ignoring," and people don't want to be told they are wrong, even implicitly. It's the same reason Kucinich doesn't have a chance.

And yes, the fact that they are black makes those issues more upsetting to a lot of moderates, who don't want to feel that they bear any blame, but know that they do. It's the same reason people can't meet the eyes of the homeless begging for change, and then pass laws forbidding them from begging.

Then there is the media issue. The media will only portray someone as they have portrayed them in the past, barring some dramatic reason to change. The media never writes new stories if they can help it,because it is easier to just pullout canned footage and update old scripts. So Sharpton's past image will dominate coverage of him.

So their color does have something to do with it, but the color alone isn't what keeps them from being viable candidates.

And incidentally, I'll be voting for Braun in the primaries, barring Gore getting in the race, or someone actually starting to look presidential from our current group. With electronic voting in my county, you can't write in a candidate unless that candidate has been approved as a write-in candidate, so I can't write in Gore, as I understand it.

[liberalcapitalist]

61. it's about turnout

The majority of people who vote Democrat would certainly vote for CMB (and maybe Sharpton), however, there is a wing of the democratic party-- union laborers-- who "vote their paycheck," but might not go so far as to vote for a Black candidate.

Furthermore, while 99% of Blacks would get out to support CMB or Sharpton, there would be an even larger number of whites who normally don't vote that would do whatever they could to stop them.

[Terwilliger]

80. IOW...racism

why do you say it would be union laborers? isn't that a bit classist as well?

[Hep]

65. Bush had money and people

Neither of which Braun, Sharpton, and lots of others have.

[leftofthedial]

69. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

to name just a few.



And because of racism in Murka.

[JohnKleeb]

72. That sadly is why very few who appeal to me truly wont win

"Its all about green" and thats true.

[leftofthedial]

79. democracy is dead as a doornail

and our government will fail us more often than not


until we get the money out of politics.

[Iverson]

75. disagree this time, Q

Your premise includes the idea that Bush became President legitimately. Correct me if I am wrong, but are you not arguing about the possibility of Sharpton or Mosley-Braun winning a legitimate election? The comparison just isn't there.

Your other point about racial double standards is well taken, and recognizing that is an important precondition to remedying it.

[Q]

86. I'm arguing that millions of Americans voted for Bush*...

...making it 'close' enough for the GOPers to pull off election fraud. (With the help of the SC and purging the polls of 'felons'.)

- The fact remains: despite his drunken past and arrest record...millions of Americans still voted for him. They knew enough about his shady past to be forewarned...but that didn't seem to matter to them.

- Yet...many Democrats refuse to even consider Sharpton as a viable candidate because of his past. And his past doesn't even come close to being as shady as Bush's*. The double-standard is obvious...and appalling.

[Iverson]

87. yes and no

Any double standard is objectionable on its own merits. However, aren't you kind of glad that some people have higher standards than others? I certainly don't use Bush as my baseline for evaluating public servants. In fact, the very thought makes me ill. Excuse me ...

:puke:

... There, that's better.

Surely you see dangers in the argument that Sharpton deserves a kind of leeway on the basis of Bush getting same.

[DealsGapRider]

76. Because both have serious ethical issues and Dems should be better than...

...the Republicans when it comes to ethics.

[ArkDem]

77. They don't exactly "shine" in the fundrasing arena.

No Money, No Win.

[Terwilliger]

81. which is where the Democrats are today

and why you'll probably lose tomorrow

[spindoctor]

83. I asked the same thing about Kucinich recently

Then today I read somebody saying "Isn't Dean the candidate that most closely represents the DU ideals" (or something to that extent).

I don't know about any DU ideals, but the FACT is, that Kucinich and Sharpton are the only two candidates on the left side of the political spectrum. Brown is the closest to the center, and Clark, Kerry and Dean bridge the gap to Gephardt, Edwards and Lieberman.
My impression of most people here is that they are further to the left than I am (wherever that is. I try to reason rather than put myself in a political corner).
Yet, at the same time, there is an overwhelming support for candidates that do not reflect those political ideals at all.

And you are right, Sharpton, Kucinich and Brown are considered "unelectable" for many reasons except a good one. And why could they not make the presidency? The bar has been lowered drastically after all. We have the living proof that any idiot can do become President of the United States of America (as if there was any question about that since the Reagan years).

Is winning this "game" more important than supporting your ideals? If you win by compromising, you don't really win, do you?

Don't get me wrong. I will support 8 out of 9 candidates after the nomination, but until that day, anything right of Brown is just another compassionate conservative in my book.

[robbedvoter]

85. W would never be nominated by dems (ideology aside)

We have a tough competition - abilities, organization, appeal. W was handed nomination, pResidency as a birth right. Wrong question.