NAACP is SERIOUSLY PO'ed at Gephart, Lieberman....

and Kucinich (Kerry and Edwards had to do some fast backtracking).

http://www.ctnow.com/news/custom/newsat3/hc-ap-naacp-lieberman-0714,0,2528499.story?coll=hc-headlines-newsat3

At least Graham and Dean, Sharpton and Moseley-Braun know where to find the backbone of the Democratic party.

which is to represent Cleveland and its western suburbs in Congress. He doesn't deserve grief over this. The other two it depends on what Gephardt's family problems are. Lieberman has no good reason.

I really appreciate DK's committment to his job, I read somewhere that the votes today are non-essential. I think it's vital that dem candidates understand that a large minority vote in 2004 is crucial.

which is pretty important to Ohio. But even if they are 'non essential' they are still votes and therefore part of his job.

Gephardt caught alot of heat over missing the overtime amendment...but a frequent practice by many in congress is to find someone from the other side who is going to vote the opposite way, who also has to be away, and both of you agree to miss the vote...as your votes would have cancelled out anyway...

It is telling that Kuchinich did not consider this a priority considering questions about his past conflicts along racial lines.

http://www.talkleft.com/archives/002393.html

As for Kerry and Edwards, they wouldn't attend if they had to share a stage with the other candidates. Hey, if the heat is too much...

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/6291857.htm

both Edwards and Kerry took for missing the 'partial birth' abortion bill. Or Gephardt for missing the overtime vote. The man has a job and I for one am glad he is doing it. He is not my rep but he is in the district next to mine and I have a republican rep. I do consider him to sort of be my rep due to that.

woulda thunk if it was important enough to him he would at least have attempted, like Edwards did, to make other arrangements due to date conflicts.

Why should Kuchinich get a pass? It would be the same complaint for any candidates who wrote off important African-American organizational events. it is a slight, considering the Party's abandonment of many concerns of the minority community--including disenfranchisement in the last election.

Representatives in the minority party can't. Edwards could put personal holds on things, filibuster, and tie the Senate in knots if they try to make him miss something. Kucinich can't do any of that. He had to choose between his job and that forum. IMO he chose wisely.

-snip-

Each time Mfume mentioned their name an organmaster played a death knell chord.
-snip-

The only reason these candidates object to the format is because it interrupts the platitudes with which they can answer questions. Ask Sharpton what he'll do for urban areas, you'll get an answer even if he can't accomplish any of it. Ask Lieberman and he'll go into a sermon about a bus ride he took 40 years ago. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that he took the ride, but THAT's his past accomplishments not his future actions.

I am glad Edwards came around after he already made them change the date once and after he missed the Rainbow Push. It was the wrong message to send.

There was an 'informal' agreement between Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, and Gephardt to limit face to face debates to 6. That is their objection to this. It was a 'first tier' protection club.

Is this for real? Did someone actually say that in public? Do I have yet another reason for not voting for any of them even though they have a D in front of their names?

Pathetic! (The message, not you, dsc)

I should have read the article 1st.

in my description of what was there. Sorry on that.

But your spin seems pretty right on to me.

no. But the agreement is discussed in the NAACP thread in the politics forum. Click on the article for that thread.

This is a paragraph from the article mentioned in the first post

Kerry's aides said the Massachusetts senator initially refused to take part in the forum to honor a verbal agreement quietly reached with three of his rivals - Edwards of North Carolina; Gephardt, a congressman from Missouri; and Lieberman, a senator from Connecticut.

No matter what their reason for this pact, it is a very dumb idea. It makes them look afraid and out of touch.

THe NAACP had already stretched to accoodate them with the date. If they made a clandestine deal, what concern should that be of any constituency book...looks like poor contingency planning.

are done deals niether one of these two Bush lite candidates have any chance whatsoever of being the dem nominee."Me and Al Gore already beat Bush".Fuck you Joe,you friggin trader,this democrat will never forget that you were the first democratic senator to censure Bill Clinton and that you were the guy who la-di-dah'ed it to Randi Rhodes when she told you there were some serious problems down here in Florida.Dick Gephardt-you played politics with soldiers lives unforgivable WE DO NOT FORGET THAT

SoFlaJets,

Thought you might find this article very interesting:
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=45466

here are a few paragraphs that set the tone

Lieberman didn’t always talk that way — he started out in politics as a supporter of Robert F. Kennedy and an opponent of the Vietnam War. When he represented a half–African-American New Haven district in the state Senate, he paraded himself as a liberal friend to the poor. What changed?

Ambition, pure and simple. In the Reagan-landslide year of 1980, Lieberman ran for Congress — and lost to a GOPer who cut Lieberman’s 17-point lead in the polls by attacking him as “too liberal.” “After he lost, Joe was advised by party stalwarts he couldn’t continue to be a progressive across the board if he wanted to move up,” recalls Irv Stolberg, the liberal former speaker of the Connecticut House, and later the founder of the state’s progressive Caucus of Concerned Democrats. It’s hardly surprising that Lieberman listened to the party bosses: His undergraduate thesis — published in 1966 as a book, The Power Broker — was a hagiography of the tough and cynical John Bailey, Connecticut’s legendary ham-fisted Democratic boss, whose creed was “You do whatever you have to do to win.”

but that is a little much. Dunno what everyone else was doing but it looks like Kucinich was working.

Maybe the NAACP should try to work with the candidates. Like having their meeting on a weekend. Persona Non Grata, come on lets get a little perspective here.

Jeremy

....jobs as Senators, Reps, Gov's, etc. Sure enough, if they had missed an important vote to be at the NAACP doings then everyone would be grumbling as to why they didn't stay and do their jobs instead of doing campaigning.

If NAACP thought this was so important why didn't NAACP go to where the candidate was and interview them there - while they were doing their job????

They should have planned accordingly and worked with the NAACP for a date that was most mutually satisfying...

:shrug:

unless your communication is something to the effect of "we just can't keep them black folks happy" in which case I will be glad to break into a round of "nobody knows the trouble I've seen"

The debate is a tradition that this callous group of candidates wishing to cover their ass with both hands didn't want to confront..too bad!

The article says that all three of them are now persona non grata, but the ctnow headline only mentions Lieberman, and the DU headline only mentions Lieberman and Gephardt.

I'm not a Kucinich supporter.

Also, I apologise for starting a duplicate thread. Looked, but I somehow missed the thread in Politics and Campaigns...

Personally, I think an NAACP convention is worth missing a day's work in Congress, especially when you're in the minority and will just be rolled on the votes, anyway.

The main thing that impressed me about the article was the "informal agreement" between Gephart, Lieberman, Kerry and Edwaeds-how's that for smoke-filled rooms.

Here is a related thread in LBN.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=11288&mesg_id=11288&page=

To express disappointment is one thing, but what right does Mfume have to write off several Democratic candidates at this point?

"NAACP President Kweisi Mfume criticized Democratic presidential candidates Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman and Dennis Kucinich on Monday for skipping the group's presidential forum, saying the three have become 'persona non grata' among black voters."

Even being president of the NAACP doesn't give him the right to speak for all black voters. Furthermore, what kind of team playing is that? He should realize that all he's doing is giving the GOP ammo. He has no right to try to strongarm and blackmail candidates into attending his function. Politics requires a more subtle approach.

Besides, as I said in the LBN thread, claiming that the candidates are afraid of Dean and Sharpton is incredibly unprofessional. If nothing else, it's an incredible insult to the other candidates who are attending (Kerry, Mosley Braun, etc.).

Way to play into Republican hands, Mfume. Way to win friends among Democrats

on edit: fixed typo

No candidate should dictate to the NAACP, but no pall was cast on Edwards for missing Rainbow/PUSH, why all the animosity here from the NAACP?

twice (once with Rainbow push, once now), and an article yesterday indicated they already attempted once to accomodate him and he came up with another scheduling conflict.

for ALL black people by declaring who is persona non grata to "black voters." Mfume is one delusional dude.