Jesse Jackson: Edwards Is Only Dem Candidate Not Ignoring African Americans...LINK

There is a definite disconnect in the MSM polling of African Americans when it comes to choosing the candidate who best represents their interests. Jesse Jackson points out that Edwards is the ONLY CANDIDATE addressing the plight of African Americans in this country.

TWO legitimate questions arise 'Can the Democratic Nominee rely upon the votes of African Americans simply because they are not Republicans? And if the interests of African Americans are not addressed will they fail to turn out and vote on election day, which would be a tremendous help to the Republican Nominee?'



Jesse Jackson: Edwards Is Only Dem Candidate Not Ignoring African Americans


http://www.suntimes.com/news/jackson/668053,CST-EDT-JESSE27.article

Most Democratic candidates are ignoring African Americans

November 27, 2007
JESSE JACKSON jjackson@rainbowpush.org

"Can Democrats get the votes they need simply because they're not Republicans? You might think so in this presidential campaign. African-American and urban votes are critical to any Democratic victory. Bill Clinton won two terms without winning the most white votes. His margin was the overwhelming support of black voters. George Bush learned that lesson; that's why his campaigns spent so much effort suppressing the black vote in key states like Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. His victory margin was the tally of votes suppressed or uncounted.

Yet the Democratic candidates -- with the exception of John Edwards, who opened his campaign in New Orleans' Ninth Ward and has made addressing poverty central to his campaign -- have virtually ignored the plight of African Americans in this country. The catastrophic crisis that engulfs the African-American community goes without mention. No urban agenda is given priority. When thousands of African Americans marched in protest in Jena, La., not one candidate showed up."

MORE

Edwards is a fake..hmmm?!

But, according to Jesse Jackson..he is the only candidate who is "addressing the concerns of African Americans". That's a lot energy to put into something that isn't real.

And that's a good point Jesse made about the bushites going to so much trouble to suppress the AA vote. Hoping Dean has even more implements in place in 2008 to make sure that Never happens again.

There was substantial evidence in the public domain that African Americans were targeted by Republicans for 'suppression' of their vote, and yet Democratic Party Officials did not challenge those actions and stand up for those voters who stood in lines in the rain for hours on end.

African Americans are not homogenous on all issues, but there is little doubt that they were targeted as a group by Republican operatives, and not enough was done to stand up for their voting rights when it mattered most.

Edwards has placed African Americans and their interests front and center. The question is will African Americans vote for 'another Clinton' or will they vote their interests this election cycle?

if my vote had been suppressed like that or any other way.

So, did Jesse endorse Obama? If he did then at least he's not blindly following him like other endorsers.

He must be a big phony!!!! :sarcasm:

I still haven't figured out how Edwards mansion would affect us when he's in the White House.
But I know how Hillary's lobbyists would affect us.....

http://www.rollcall.com/politics/kstendorsements.html

of the most respected progressive voices in the party. He represents the "rainbow coalition" that is made up of the people with traditional democratic values. Like Mario Cuomo, Jesse is one of the party's Elder Statesmen that is worth listening to.

Thank you for this post.

I got to hear Jesse speak when he campaigned with Edwards in 2004 during the general. He was absolutely electrifying and wow, can he ever work a crowd. It was the best rally I attended in 2004.

You will find that every politician has scars from mistakes they have made in the past, just like the rest of us. Yet that does not diminish their ability to contribute to our society and our political debate on issues absolutely essential to preserving democracy and providing for the welfare of all our citizens.

Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy had their personal problems as well, but their legacies are secured by the good they accomplished in spite of those failings.

Democrats would do well to listen to Jesse Jackson and John Edwards when it comes to issues like poverty, discrimination, etc. We are all part of this country and our government should represent us all. WHen people and their legitimate needs and concerns are ignored they will find a way to be heard, and that may not be by blindly voting DEmocratic in every election.

Right now, I don't hear AA needs and concerns being adequately addressed by the Democratic Candidates running for President, other than John Edwards.

is starting to realize how close they are to the edge with massive job outsourcing, a realestate meltdown, and trade and federal deficits reaching near unrepayable levels.

I think that Jackson, like MLK, has come to realize much of the problem is about poverty and the ills it inflicts on all Americans. Because of this I can understand him backing Edwards.

I posted it in Articles and Editorials but it's going ignored...sigh.

K&R!

to Hillary suggesting they narrow down the number of candidates debating -- that they "weren't serious". Nice guy. Since then, I don't have a lot of faith in Edwards being above board, and question his motives.

Pretty amazing logic there.

want the video, I'll get you the link.

If there is one drawback to our present system of debates it is that the number of participants warps the format, and the candidates do not actually debate since they do not all answer the same questions, and are not allowed to address the other candidates directly.

If there were fewer candidates, there would be more time for each candidate to give more detailed and thoughtful answers, and they would be able to follow up on comments made by each other.

At the present there are three(3) candidates who are likely to become the Democratic Party Nominee, and the others do not poll large enough numbers to break into that group. However, the same debate format and style could be implemented with candidates other than the top 3, and they would benefit greatly from having time to answer and attention.

I don't see how you lose faith in someone for wanting a more useful and helpful format, regardless of who suggested it.

felt uncomfortable about him.

We're just not going to agree on the debate thing - I strongly disagree with your view on it, and I'm actually sorry I posted my snarky post to begin with - it was uncalled for.

Peace.

I have a lot of sympathy for Democratic Candidates who are ignored in the present Debate Format. It is not right, and I have consistently pointed that out --especially in regard to Kucinich.

However, IMHO you cannot fix the present format. It is hopelessly flawed. There has to be a better way --especially when you consider that the ideas of candidates who do not win the Nomination may very well be great additions to the platform Democrats put together at the Convention.

One possibility: Have two honest to goodness 1.5 Hour Debates on the same night with HRC, BO and JRE in one, and Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich in the other. Maybe on different TV/Cable Channels, repeated later on the other channel than originally broadcasted. THis would give people time and the opportunity to hear ALL THE CANDIDATES in more detail, and with a fairer allocation of time. Just an idea.

But certainly the present format hurts all the candidates for different reasons, and I think Edwards and Clinton recognize the limitations of the present debate format --which by the way is not a real debate by definition.

equitably showcasing all of the candidates. Actually, I'm not sure it's the format as much as it is the irresponsible way the moderators lavish more time on the Top Three at the expense of the others. Polling statistics or not, it's not fair and it's unjust.

With the possibility you suggest, I think hardly anybody would tune into the "other guys" debate so how would that benefit them? A LARGE number of people have never even heard of Biden, et al. And sticking with that scenario, these guys really need to be able to go up against the Top Three in order to gain any traction in the polls. The candidates are running for President - not for who's the best of any given sub-group.

If there are x number of candidates, I believe they have the right to all appear at once, and IDEALLY each get the same amount of time to "non-debate" as it were. Unfortunately I don't have high hopes that they will each be given the same opportunity to present their platforms and respond to criticisms, but at least they're all in it together. I think any dividing up smacks of "presidential candidate elitism".

greatly by that idea - sorry you feel that way. I don't think his motives are anything beyond being a public servant for this country. Here's a real indicator on motives: http://www.rollcall.com/politics/kstendorsements.html

Good luck to you and your candidate - I truly like Biden, I hope he does well in the primaries.

the "not serious" folks, that would probably just leave Clinton, Edwards and Obama. If they met in smaller groups, because of the media hype, the only debates that would draw viewers would again be the Top Three.

I know what Edwards said, and I'm of the mind (right or wrong) that it was only in response to being overheard -- caught on tape if you will.

There are other reasons why I'm not comfortable with Edwards (or Clinton), but that's what clinched it for me.

And I wish you the best of luck with your candidate, too -- this will be interesting! :hi:

... thanks for the heads-up.

- Dave

P.S. Check your Inbox.

or need health care

or die in Iraq

I have heard Jackson speak several times and never heard him say either of those things you just attributed to him.

African Americans


I don't think that's true.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

a focal point for his campaign.

What are the other candidates doing that even comes close to this?

1. OP says that jackson believes edwards is the only candidate not ignoring african americans

2. at least one other candidate, kucinich is championing workers' issues and a solution to the health care mess; he is not ignoring those who work for a living and he is not ignoring those who want health care like the rest of the modern world has

3. therefore, jackson must believe that no african americans work or need health care; otherwise, he would have also said that kucinich is not ignoring african americans

actively courted by candidates.

Well, you learn something new everyday, I guess.

Are you a friend of Bill? Is Hillary?