Without getting into the ramifications of Dean's lack of minority appointees, I wanted to know why Al Sharpton is treated as an equal on this large a political stage? Taking into account his past foibles (i.e. Tawana Brawley) & also looking at the recent report by the NY Times over the weekend (http://story.news.yahoo.com/ news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/ 20040110/ap_on_el_pr/ sharpton_money_2), why is Sharpton still in this thing & not being raked over the coals as any of the other candidates would have been?
The simple answer is that offending Sharpton & calling him on these things (which is what Dean & any other candidate should do when Sharpton starts to attack) would cost these candidates the Black vote. The problem with that theory is that I can not accept that Al Sharpton is the voice of the Black community & would influence their votes one way or the other (add Jesse Jackson & Louis Farakkan into that list!).
I guess what I want to know is why is this person seemingly exempt from the same scrutiny that every other candidate is subject to? Is it simply because he is Black, or is there something else here??
Al Sharpton's exempt from scrutiny? That's news to me.
The reason that no one's paying any real attention to the Sharpton campaign is the same reason that no one's paying any real attention to Dennis Kucinich's campaign or Carol Mosely-Braun's campaign. They have so little of a chance of actually winning the nomination that it isn't worth the effort.
THE 2003 FUZZIES! Vote now in the only awards that matter! They're cooler than being cool!
When Al Sharpton levels accusations against Howard Dean on a nationally televised debate & instead of (rightfully) attacking Sharpton & defending himself, Dean just sits there taking it, there is something wrong with that picture.
This has nothing to do with his chances of winning, this has to do with the other candidates unwillingness to call Sharpton on what he has done & what he stands for. Yet they just sit back & take his accusations without firing back.
OFB already answered your question, Maestro. You want a larger one? Its simple, Sharpton has nothing to lose. He knows this, they know this. That makes him dangerous, thats why none of the major candidates want to get down and dirty with him. its not worth their time. Especially Dean, hes the front runner. Good enough?
I know you want to scream "ITS BECAUSE HES BLACK!!!" and that pisses you off. Hey I can understand, but thats politics.
If you respond to Sharpton's attacks you only accomplish one of two things: Either you legitimize him and pull him up to your level, or you're lowering your credibility and sinking to his level. Neither of those things are good for the front runners in the campaign.
"I'm going to go now and demand beer money from my representative. We simply must deal with the problem of my sobriety." - PalpatineW
Originally posted by JaguarIf you respond to Sharpton's attacks you only accomplish one of two things: Either you legitimize him and pull him up to your level, or you're lowering your credibility and sinking to his level. Neither of those things are good for the front runners in the campaign.
Well said. I get tired of everytime something like this occurs, people want to inject race into it. Slowly, IMO, we are creeping towards the time when race dimishes in importance.
Sharpton made an attack, and Dean responded. He tried race baiting and nothing really happened. That is progress to me.
The guys on Crossfire today basically stated the same thing: Dean can't afford to verbally bitchslap Sharpton or to say they can inject race into ANYTHING, simply because it's still such a touchy issue and there's votes to be had.
FLAMES: 21-12-3-3 for 48 points It took the team until March 5th to get 21 wins last year
blockquote> I am glad Sen. Clinton went to Afganistan and am appreciative of her efforts in raising the morale of our troops as well. But there is a quantum leap between a Senator and a President. When's the last time a President entered a war zone?