EURweb.com - Black Entertainment | Black News | Urban News | Hip Hop News | Black Entertainment

Newsletter Sign-up:

News on Michael Jackson, 50 Cent, Beyonce & More

EURweb

Back to the Article » Click Here

Click here to post your comments.

Name: chavon91

Comment: MO, I can't agree with you more, Al Sharpton is a great mouth piece for civil rights but I can't forsee him as my president. He lacks the personality for leadership of the free world. I can see it now, him insisting that his cabinet get a press and curl or bounce!

Name: ImJustAsking

Comment: hmm MO I couldn't even finish this article. As someone who watched all the Presidential debates the last time Al ran I find your portrayal of him offensive here. He was articulate, honest, relatable, and serious about the issues. He forced the other candidates to talk about things they were probably planning to avoid addressing. It's one thing for you to say that he can't get pass the tax evasion/Tawana Brawley incident, but it's another thing to portray him as a person who can't hold his own up against the other candidates.

Name: ImJustAsking

Comment: I'm not saying he should get elected, I'm saying that some good has come out of him running in the past so why not have him do it now when so much is at stake? He knows he can't win therefore he gets to speak with a level of honesty and courageousness that the other candidates cannot. He adds dimension to the process.

Name: yunvme

Comment: IJA- I agree with you. Aint nuthin wrong with Al. Some of our own are afraid of this brotha cause he speaks up and speaks out. I gather that many black folk would rather nominate Obama cause he doesnt ruffle white folks feathers ( well not yet anyway).

Name: B00TANEB00TUS

Comment: ...I kinda agree with ya IJA...I watched the debates also...Al presented himself well...He was able to answer all the questions and didn't get sidetracked by all the in-fighting the other candidates did...He knows his role is to bring issues to the forefront and what better forum than the debates?...I think we sometimes focus on trivial issues...Ok, so his hair is permed...Ok, he supported Tawanna...Ok, he was caught on tape...Ok, there was the tax thing...Mo, Al's just letting the Dems know that if they don't address certain issues, then he's gon toss his hat in the ring...Then he's gonna smooth down his hair...He's not gonna run Mo....He ain't wearing his sweatsuit...

Name: musbdherbs

Comment: WOW! IJA ur on a roll. I couldn't agree w/you more. O'kelly, while I understand your point about his checkered past, we usually only focus on that "past" when it's someone we are not in favor of. Case in point, most people would agree w/u and would use that against him. But, at the same time, those same people would defend Obama's herb/coke use and his indonesian school'n as "it's in the past." In that same vein, you and the rest of America really needs to let Tawanna and 'nem go. This is especially so when we can't comment on Cosby's "past discretions" cuz he's telling it like it is. If Al wants to run...then by all means he should and I hope that he does.

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: Well, we are all entitled to disagree. Just because someone 'can' doesn't mean someone 'should.' I'm squarely of the opinion that just because someone can tell it like it 't.i.s' doesn't mean that a priori it's the best way to go about it. It matters who is saying it. He can 'say' it without all the mess that accompanies him too. And 'herbs'...these aren't 'past' discretions. In fact he's also presently being sued for skipping out on rent for his National Action Network Headquarters. It's always somethin' with Al. I expect more and require 'more' than simply being a good mouthpiece. If you can't be a good mouthpiece AND a true leader of integrity...the message doesn't mean much. I stand behind everything I've written.

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: This is only one week old. http://www.nypost.com/seven/01212007/news/regionalnews /deadbeat_rev__al_sued_regionalnews_janon_fisher.htm There's a recurring pattern here...hope you recognize it.

Name: Quietstorm

Comment: cosign IJA. Al's "skeletons" are no worse than any other politicians. And really, can we do any worse than Bush? If the brother wants to run let him run.

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: "No worse?" Uh...nobody up there has an FBI drug sting tape on them. If Bush were caught on tape...we would've been raising holy hell. Not even comparable. Not even close. If a Republican made the same campaign misappropriation mistakes we'd be up in arms. Ooops, too late. We WERE already up in arms...remember the 2006 election? These aren't even close...and like I just posted...aren't "past" in nature.

Name: YLawdY

Comment: Well I posted a really well thought out and worded response and Boomquesha lost it. Don't know if I can articulate so well twice in one day. Anyway. I don't believe Al should run. Whether his indiscretions are past or present isn't the issue. The fact that they are items that will be used to take the focus off what he has to say is. I feel Al would best serve everyone's interests from the sidelines as a "commentator" promoting sincerity and accountability among all the candidates. Despite his good intentions and excellent oratory skills, it is too easy to make Al the butt of jokes as a candidate doing all of us a disservice as the man has many valid things to say and could play an important role for whoever becomes the ultimate Dem candidate for president. I want Al to do my eulogy, though.

Name: BigRuss

Comment: It is interesting how people want to decide who should represent African-Americans. I don't have a problem with Al STEPPING UP and representing. It is easy to say that Al is easily dismissed. I would say this is why he is very representative of African-Americans because African-American are easily dismissed. I like the fact that there is more diversity in the presidential election (Two brothas running). You go Al and anyone else willing to step up.

Name: musbdherbs

Comment: O'Kelly, considering that you wrote it, I expect u to "stand behind everything." But here is where our criticisms diverge. You posted this link from the NY Post as evidence of his "recurring pattern." But even the article is slim on facts and at this point seems to be the landlord's word against his. I'm inclined not to believe either at this point simply bcuz there is not enough information to gauge the truth. Yet, you have put this into your "evidence against Al's unworthiness." As usual, I prefer facts as opposed to innuendo. You are feeding the flames. Would I vote for Al..probably not. Should he run...w/o question YES! Until some of our other black leaders decide to do the same...we will ALWAYS have AL to count on.

Name: musbdherbs

Comment: And this is the entire article:January 21, 2007 -- The landlord of the Harlem building where the Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network was based is suing the group for $40,000 in back rent, court records say. But Sharpton claims it's the landlord that owes him twice that amount for the security and rent the group paid on an auditorium they couldn't use because of a 2003 office fire. The lawyer for the landlord said Sharpton was a deadbeat tenant well before the fire. "He usually comes up with the money after we get a marshal and threaten to kick him out," said Benjamin Kaplan, the lawyer for 1941-1947 Madison Avenue Associates. He said the office at 52 E. 125th St. was left a shambles when Sharpton's people bolted. "We had to pay for cleaning it out," said Kaplan.

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: My point is this...the lawsuit exists...and after awhile, it ceases to always be "someone elses" fault. And mind you, that's not even mentioning the "other" innuendo of indiscretions floating out there. I'm sticking to only the stuff in print. Like I stated in the article. Of course he "can" run. But at the same time, since he is "running" allegedly representing the collective interests of African-Americans, then he needs to have his collective ish together. Therein lies the difference. We're all clear this is a free country...he can run. But as long as he's "touting" himself as a democratic 'enforcer' for African-Americans...then his own house has to be in order or he's both spinning his wheels and hurting the cause. I don't see it as you do in terms of "counting" on Al. We as a people get far too captivated by rhetoric and oratory and not enough emphasis on real issues. Al Sharpton has had a questionable history throughout his public career, more than any "candidate" out there or potentially out there. I need more than just fiery oratory. I need someone who doesn't routinely embarrass Black folks. It's not asking a lot.

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: I can't EVER get behind someone in an FBI video with a mob boss talking about drug profit percentages. I'm hearing the same time of rhetoric from those who supported Marion Barry. There are just some things that are unacceptable and inexplicable. That right there trumps any supposed drug use by a candidate in college or sex with an intern. THAT speaks to the broken foundation of African-Americans...drug trafficking. Hell no, I can't get behind him, no matter how much "truth" he spits. At the minimum a presidential candidate MUST be accountable. He's not accountable to anyone but Al and because he is "brave" enough to say what others may not...he gets a pass from us. The truth is, he's "brave" enough to say certain things because he's not taken seriously enough to impact the election. There aren't any repercussions if you DON'T take him seriously. That speaks volumes. It was quite different with Jesse in the 80s.

Name: musbdherbs

Comment: And you're speaking for the p.o.v. that he is an embarassment for YOU. Factually, AL has NEVER embarassed me so even YOU don't speak for all black folk. Harold for didn't speak for ME bcuz I disagree w/his stance on abortion, gay rights, etc. So, if AL decides to run he will speak for those who support him...which will not include YOU. As far as our collective interest..AL champions economic empowerment, civil participation, affordable health care, bannin n!gger, speaks out against the ills of hip-hop etc. All of those seem to be shared by most of us...our collective interest. That said, we may not be a fan of his rhetoric at times. I agree that WE get caught up in rhetoric and oratory but fortunately, I'm not one of those and most take pages out of the black church on "how to deliver a message." In the case of the lawsuit, neither of us know who's at fault. But based on "what's in print" you've already concluded who's to blame. Contrary to what you believe you are NOT the standard-bearer on what's unacceptable...cuz in the end..it's your opinion. That's part of the problem w/US...we know all the answers.

Name: shala

Comment: Mo'Kelly, I agree with you 100% that Al needs to sit down somewhere. We don't need him to represent US and we know he won't be elected so it's just a waste of time and money IMO!

Name: Stephanie

Comment: Damn, I forgot about the drug sting. Y'all know this is today's joke. Al Sharpton running for President, yeah right. This is nothing but a ploy to tell us, this time, we better get out and vote or else he's running. I would have voted for Hilary but she lost me with the Iraq war so Obama has my vote plus it would be wonder to have a AA first lady. Yes, Hil has more political experience but if she doesn't take a stand on bringing the troops home, Obama is going to give her a serious run for her money!

Name: MzTee

Comment: IJA -- GO ON GIRL!You're first two comments were on point...and Musb, you picked up the ball and ran it home. I've always appreciated Rev. Al's knowledge of the issues and his ability to effectively articulate how those issues affect our community. I get tired of hearing the same politicians speak the standard party line and rhetoric. Al has always been a breath of fresh of air because he isn't afraid to tell the truth. There is nothing wrong with bro Al running for President.

Name: SweetieDarlin

Comment: Wow I'm pleasantly surprised at the Al Sharpton supporters. I do appreciate the fact that he is at least on the front lines. As Al has always said he may not represent everyone, but he is trying to represent those who do not have a voice, who do not know how to go about seeking their rights/justice. Yes there have been some issues in the past but when you get down to it, in a lot of cases no one is there but Al and I feel that his presence does get things down. As far as Tawanda Brawley, does that ever die out, wasn't that like 1987?? He does not embarrass me, I co-sign Musbe' and ImJustAsking's comments.

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: No, he doesn't embarrass 'me.' But in terms of a "leader" trying to push an African-American agenda...it is embarrassing to it.

Name: yunvme

Comment: Morris do feel that he shouldnt run because of his past or are you using his past as a way to persuade others to not vote for him because you dont want the "black" vote split?

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: I would say his past detracts from the issues that 'we' care about getting their due attention. Unfortunately there's always some sort of 'mess' attached to Al and that's an important fact in discussing political platforms and agendas. If Al had a less spotty history, he's twice as powerful. Right now, I see him as a lot of rhetoric without command of a constituency. For example, his election finance issues indicate that he doesn't fundraise well. If you don't fundraise well, you don't have any real pull to speak of. You can't mobilize companies and constituencies to follow you. That's significant.

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: And it's not about splitting the black vote as he'd never get the nomination. So we're only talking about the primaries. I believe he could be far more effective working to support another candidate, not BE the candidate. I think it's a stretch to believe that in terms of Washington he's taken seriously or holds considerable clout that affects the Democrats. And if that's true, then the candidacy is a red herring and doesn't serve any purpose but appeasement of his ego... And those who want to see a "Black" candidate.

Name: YLawdY

Comment: Pro Al or Con Al...he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in heyall of winning the primary, so why not concentrate his and our efforts on the candidate that most represents our interests? It's all well and good to have Al speechifying, but he can do that anytime anywhere. We need to be focusing on who and what is in our best interests. IMO that isn't Rev. Al.

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: Speechifying...that's good. Gotta remember that one. But yes, we agree. To focus on Al in terms of political backing is simply backing the wrong horse all the way around.

Name: DarkBerry

Comment: AMEN

Name: barnone

Comment: Mo> my brotha....i had 2 stop reading, cuz i was n tears....laughing. now when u write brilliant articles like this i have 2 give u props. your penmanship was brilliant, hilarious, etc. etc. and so on point. and BTW bruhman is truly wrong 4 that processed hair.

Name: rikyrah

Comment: Mr. Kelly, another good column with more than a few laughs thrown in. Rev. Al needs to stay on the radio.

Name: barnone

Comment: wow...just finished reading all of the posts. it's interesting 2 c brothas and sistas so concerned and involved in politricks. truth b told, and not wanting 2 step on any's toes, but no AA candidate has a realistic chance of being elected. amerikkka, just isn't ready 4 that leap. and trust, it's a tall one. just the mere fact there is so much dialogue surrounding Obama's blackness is indication in itself that the color line is still a very real issue n the good ole "Us" of A.

Name: eurwebfan

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: Uh...for you to disregard his past and not acknowledge that it's in direct contradiction to his oratory only means you're interested in what someone says and not someone does. I don't care what he speaks out against...I only care what he IS against. I never alleged he spoke for all Black folk. I never said he embarrassed me. Scroll up and catch up in this discussion. After some 8 instances of smoke, the fire is real. For you to disregard it is ignorance on your part. That's neither logical or rational. I didn't support this administration either so I'm consistent. The joke is believing that just because a Black man runs who spits game, that's somehow a good option. Hoodwinked, bamboozles, led astray. You should expect more, demand more and know you deserve more than the empty trinkets of fiery rhetoric. I don't care if he takes a public stance against drugs. I only care if he's not in active discussions to get a cut of the profits when it's sold in his own community. Chew on that one for awhile before you stumble to the ballot box.

Name: ImJustAsking

Comment: Mo< I cannot believe you made a point of them having Al on tape. Excuse you! I got George Bush on tape starting a freaking war! And no I don’t think that his dealings are necessarily contrary to what he says he supports, and certainly no more than any other candidate as I believe Musb pointed out. And also, as far as us wasting time and money supporting him in the primaries there is a very simple way to get around that and Al did it last time. A candidate who knows he can’t win, like Sharpton is not going to ask people for enough money to enable him to travel to every state the other candidates travel to. That’s stupid, he’s not campaigning he is debating, there’s a difference. He will probably show up in Iowa and New Hampshire, and if Terry Macauliff is successful in getting Cali’s primary moved up he may go there as well. Other than that, he will only visit enough states to maintain process credibility. All he will really worry about his attending the debates. Therefore, his candidacy will not take anything away from the other candidates that are more legitimate. And notice that all the people who came up here to support your opinion of him had something derogatory or amusing to say about the man's personal speaking or dressing style NOT HIS PLATFORM. All that aside, even if you had credible arguments against him running, I STILL find it HIGHLY offensive that you portrayed him in your article as someone who couldn't keep up in a debate. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Name: musbdherbs

Comment: IJA...thank you!

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: Uh, you can talk about you having George Bush "on tape" all you like. The fact is I would vote for neither. And since Al can't and won't win, the war comparison is invalid. He'll never ben in position to make such decisions. But even when he WASN'T in office, he's made egregious mistakes. That's the key. The points that we make about Al PERSONALLY is because that's really there is to say about him. There is no PROFESSIONAL in which to speak of, if you're honest about it. You tell me exactly what he's done PROFESSIONALLY and when. We know his connection to civil rights, but since you want to talk about his platform...explain exactly what his platform is beyond rhetoric. Platform also includes your actions. If you want to make this a "political" debate, we can get down.

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: You obviously didn't read my column too closely IJA. I CLEARLY said that he is a brilliant and astute orator. Nobody has any problem with his debating skills. I clowned him AND Hillary AND Barack if you were paying attention. If you found that portion of the column "offensive" don't know what to tell you. I find drug sting tapes offensive. That's a part of his PROFESSIONAL career. I found Tawana Brawley offensive...part of his PROFESSIONAL career. I find his campaign misappropriations offensive...part of his PROFESSIONAL career. Nobody's saying the man can't speak. I'm saying the man is PROFESSIONALLY ill-equipped to affect change beyond rhetoric and that he can do from the sidelines. So, you're a Sharpton fan...we're clear on that. When you can start explaining to me how all of the items are listed are insignificant then we have a real discussion going. But comparing him to George Bush is silly. Nobody up in this conversation would've voted for George, so you're really just adding fuel to my fire.

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: And lastly...I don't "need" to get past his past. His past (just like every other candidate) is somehow relevant. Again, we're not talking about whether someone inhaled or exhaled...we're talking about someone caught in the midst of drug negotiations!!!!! Are you serious?!!! That's not significant? Arguably the only reason he wasn't charged was that there wasn't ENOUGH evidence, but clearly when you're negotiating receipts with a mob boss and an FBI undercover informant...you do not have clean hands. When your "campaign" from 2004 is STILL more than $400,000 in debt and $145,000 is allegedly owed to Al for "Kinkos"...that's a joke. He's better off for his own sake NOT running. A point I didn't bring up in the piece is arguably, he's ONLY running to help get out of that debt he's been making payments on...check the records. If he "runs" he can fundraise. He can get matching grants from the government and recoup some of his losses when he does what he does "best." I don't care how "well" he comports himself in a debate if EVERYTHING he does outside of the debate helps discredit him...by his own doing. Not stuff people had to "dig up" on him. You're arguing with your heart and not your head. It doesn't matter if he's bringing up issues that other candidates are loathe to address as long as they aren't forced to take him seriously. Hell, I could run for President and bring up the same issues. But again, since I wield no political clout and can't deliver a constituency, it's irrelevant. Those are the issues here. Not whether you like how he debates. Show how he has political clout, not Negro watching the TV who likes his oratory skills clout and then we have something. Show me how he has leverage in Washington and is not more than a mouthpiece and then we have something. The truth is he has neither...coincidentally connected to ALL the reasons I've listed. Yes, he has an "Amen" corner...but no constituency. This is politics, not the church.

Name: YLawdY

Comment: " I'm saying the man is PROFESSIONALLY ill-equipped to affect change beyond rhetoric and that he can do from the sidelines." This is it in a nutshell. I personally love to hear Rev. Al speak. He is a compelling and passionate orator. That has absolutely no bearing on his ability to be a credible political player. His "playing" at being a candidate is just a distraction from the very serious business we face in choosing elected officials that will promote platforms with clear courses of action beneficial to our community. IMO Rev. Al as a straw candidate is uneccessary clutter. He has a place in the process as do we all, just not as a candidate.

Name: ImJustAsking

Comment: Mo< I would HARDLY call myself a Sharpton fan. A Harold Ford Jr. fan, yes, all the way. A Sharpton fan…no. The reason his past does not bother me here is because HE WILL NOT BE PRESIDENT, but he will serve a purpose that no one else is willing to do. The fact that he won’t win negates his past b/c who really gives a f*ck when all we’re trying to do is get some black issues on the table for discussion NOT have Sharpton be President. Mo, I really would think you would understand how important it is to play the game and get your issues discussed by any means necessary. Ralph Nader didn’t think he could win, Ross Perot didn’t think he could win but thanks to people like Nader and Perot we have the freedom of information act, we resolved issues involving the treatment of our POWs in Iran and Asia, we signed the Kyoto treaty, legitimized the existence of a 3rd party… Those were THEIR issues that they were able to advance even knowing they wouldn’t win the Presidency. Why can’t black people do that as well? Also, b/c Barack Obama can’t come out and say certain things b/c it will make him look like a black-only candidate, if Sharpton forces all candidates to give their opinion on certain issues, it will give Obama an opening to express his opinion and look less radical next to Sharpton. When black people learn to think strategically we will take over the world, until then, we get this. *points around the country*

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: Nader and Perot could deliver constituencies...your argument is moot. I am thinking strategically. Absolutely. And strategically, Sharpton is a distraction. YLawdY said it best. He has a place in the process, just not as a candidate. That's the ultimate acknowledgement of strategy. He doesn't need to be in the presidential debate to raise relevant issues. That's foolish to be that's the only venue in which such issues will be taken seriously. Historically that has NEVER been true. The flipside of the argument is that part of the reason Sharpton can't deliver a constituency is because Black people haven't voted in numbers enough to make people listen. Again, can't stress it enough. It's more than just "what he says" it matters who says it. Nader and Perot could deliver that 5-6% that would swing an election. Sharpton has never demonstrated he could deliver even 1% in a national election. So in terms of "strategy" if Sharpton wanted to be more "effective" he'd run as an independent (to use your Perot and Nader comparison) and then try to leverage the Black vote that way. But since he doesn't wield that leverage, he can't.

Name: ImJustAsking

Comment: Mo< he doesn't need a constituency!!!!!! He is NOT THERE TO WIN!!! He is there to advance issues and no he cannot do that with an effectiveness REMOTELY comparable to that of a nationally televised Presidential debate. If you can't see that then I just need to leave you alone at this point.

Name: YLawdY

Comment: The Nadar, Perot analogy doesn't float with Al. 1. They had money. 2. They had clout that could deliver votes. 3. and the big one...they had credibility. I believe Rev. Al's sincerely intended message will be lost because NO ONE that matters in the big business of the process takes him seriously. It will be too easy cover his very valid points by clowning him and bringing up all the aforementioned issues. Question re: Obama...Do we really want/respect a leader that needs someone else to open the door for him to state his position by asking the tough questions?

Name: ImJustAsking

Comment: I meant to say no he cannot advance issues from the sidelines with an effectiveness that is comparable to that of a nationally televised Presidential debate.

Name: YLawdY

Comment: IJA...do you think that the issues he would advance during a national debate would resonate with those that affect the political machine? The amen corner is well and good, but how would that translate in actions? We're all going to sit home and say "Tell it Al", but is the power base going to be affected?

Name: YLawdY

Comment: He does need a constituency. They are the people that will support his positions publically, vocally and at the voting booths. The people he can gather is what determines how seriously the power structure takes his "issues" whether he runs for president or not.

Name: ImJustAsking

Comment: YlawdY< I don't know what you mean by respect, I don't know if we respect any of our leaders. But the fact is, politicians ROUTINELY use someone else to open the door to speak on an issue. It's the easiest way to express a controversial idea. Candidates advance their agenda by adapting the platofrm of another person or group, they soften it to appear more centrist, and end up looking like the person with the fresher and more rational approach. that's pretty much how politics works in this country. AS far as people not taking him seriously, that is totally ridiculous. Go back and look at the debates from 2004. The point in which Al dropped out, you can see John Edwards and John Kerry immediately adopt and adapt Sharpton's rhetoric. IN FACT, John Edwards is currently campaigning on many of the ideas that Sharpton brought to the table and has a considerable edge in the polls over all candidates in the first two primary states.

Name: YLawdY

Comment: IJA..you know I'm supposed to be taking my nap! 1. ROUTINELY is not what we want. 2. Kerry and Edwards adopted and adapted because they had nothing of their own. They were like Jay and Silent Bob. 3. Is Edward's lead a result of the rhetoric or a rejection of the other choices...woman, black man and goofy ex mayor, et al?

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: If I remember correctly...John Kerry did and offered nothing specifically to Black folks, but Al eventually endorsed him anyway. So at the end of the day, it didn't really matter because the understanding is that the Democrats are supposed to fall in line and support the nominee. If you want to argue "strategy" he would be better off as an independent...that is if he had a constituency. No constituency...no campaign funds or juice. It's not about who "likes" you or what you have to say. It's about who you can get to fund and vote you. When they talk about Hillary being able to raise 100 million...that's clout. When they talk about Al being 500,000 in debt from his last campaign...that's lack of clout.

Name: ImJustAsking

Comment: MO< For the last time, he is not running to win! Damn, why won't you listen? YlawdY< I'm glad I'm keeping you up b/c you don't deserve a day off with that raggedy opinion you are sporting up in here lol. If you don't like 'routine' then you might as well recuse yourself from the entirepolitical process. Until McCain-Feingold passes (or preferably something stronger), we are stuck with candidates who are forced to pander. And until there a diminished since of race and gender in this country we will be stuck with the same. That's just reality. I'm done focusing on how it should be, I wanna win it the way it is now. As far as Edwards and Kerry not offering anything to black folk I disagree whole heartedly. They and Sharpton harped on the safety and benefits of the troops who are disproportionately black, many of which are returning home wounded and without proper care or housing, they all harped on the rights of laboreres and using tax and other incentives to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. which would help black men more than anyone else. Their platform on healthcare helps us b/c we have a disproportionate number of children who are uninsured and a disproportionate number of low wage earners who cannot afford private policies or the Republican touted health savings accounts. Just advancing those three things would be a major achievement. I mean what specifically are you looking for your dream candidate to say? It's so easy to criticize but ask yourself do you really have a platform that doesn't just list a challenge but actually proposes a way to address it?

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: You're not listening either...I'm aware he isn't running to win. But I'm also saying his running doesn't sway any balance or impact the Democratic platform that the nominee takes forth. That's what it comes down to. If he can't win and can't impact the platform other than rhetoric, the point of the campaign is what. I understand the relevancy of the issues he raises, but if they're not more than soudbites of importance, they don't mean much. He doesn't force anyone to address his platform or his issues. Like I said, Kerry Edwards did nothing and still got his endorsement. That makes Al a paper tiger.

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: My dream candidate does...or can MAKE the lesser candidate do. Al doesn't/hasn't forced anybody to DO anything. That's the point here. And my argument is that it's partially related to WHO he is. A different candidate of less spotty history might wield more power than Al in that regard.

Name: musbdherbs

Comment: O'Kelly..you are ONCE AGAIN, framing a debate w/in a debate. If you wanted to talk about the political machine and all of the things required to WIN that's one thing..but you're article is more of "what a joke Al Sharpton is." Of course AL KNOWS he's not going to win so your campaign expertise matters not here. This is a debate we should be having w/a more 'acceptable' candidate. It's plainly obvious that ONCE AGAIN your disaproval of something is TOTALLY leaving you void of objectivity. You wrongly azzumed that IJA was a "fan" of AL simply bcz she wasn't downin him like you're doing. IMO that speaks to a lack of objectivity. The reason that he doesn't have an "active platform" is becuz people are still talking about what he did 20 years ago...relevant or not! Fact is you don't want to have a debate w/anyone...you just want to be right! If you did want one..you would know that "church" or the "Amen Corner" is what gets people elected. Don't be confused. TD jakes and his crew (the amen corner) supported the president in the '04 election based on nothing but his word. They THOUGHT they were building a platform for themselves but it fell flat. So politics and the church sometimes go hand in hand. AL has an audience and that's why he's been around as long as he has. BUT, as long as WE continue to discredit him on every move then he will ALWAYS be unimportant. You are posting bullshyt articles about a landlord as evidence of the "bad" person AL is and as a 'journalist', you should know better. Well then again....

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: I assumed IJA was a "fan" because IJA was personally offended at the debate characterization and chose to ignore (among other things) the facts of Al Sharpton's PROFESSIONAL career. In terms of lacking objectiving, THAT is exemplary of it and consistent with being a "fan." That was an accurate description, despite how IJA may deny it.

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: And as a point of fact, the landlord article was not in my piece...get your facts straight. I used to elucidate in the post discussion there is always SOMETHING in even a present sense that speaks to the discussion of his character. The underlying theme about my piece was that one can't raise the issues as to character (of other Democrats) or take the "moral high ground" with Republicans if he isn't above reproach. THAT is why everything in his past is relevant. In other words, if you own a sweat shop, you can't talk about workers rights. If you are of questionable moral behavior you can't realistically argue the "moral imperative" of the African-American agenda...which he does.

Name: musbdherbs

Comment: Of course O'kelly you're right. Being wrong is not something familiar to you.

Name: Story2tell

Comment: If you are of questionable moral behavior you can't realistically argue the "moral imperative" of the African-American agenda.......Is the same true of Bill Cosby??? I just had to ask.

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: If I didn't think I could be "wrong" I wouldn't be in this discussion...the whole point of discussion is listening to all points and views. But at the same time, I've yet to hear exactly how #1, Sharpton affects the political machine to our advantage as a candidate and #2, how his personal background isn't relevant when he speaks allegedly from the moral high ground? And Story2Tell...you are ABSOLUTELY correct and why many people find fault with Cosby. Not only that...when he was at his highest popularity he had a general rule of having nothing to say, so for many he's not only hypocritical but Johnny come lately to the discussion. So yes, even though Cosby has merit in the content of his message...he as the messenger (and also the method of disseminating it) is an issue.

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: So yes, Cosby having a child out of wedlock (through an affair) definitely is an issue when he browbeats African-Americans for being sexually "irresponsible" or needing to shape up. To keep it relevant to this conversation, it's very real to dismiss anything Al has to say about the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration or how drugs have overrun the inner cities or how Republicans have been corrupt. Those are shallow, shallow complaints coming from Al.

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: And to your last point 'Herbs...it's not my responsibility to uplift a candidate simply because he's Black. That's the whole point of the piece. 'We' all could get behind Al, but I submit that he's not the one to get all of us behind. And you will hear that same argument in regards to Barack. It's not enough to just be 'Black' or even speak to our issues. You have to be in our best interests. And just like what I've said, Al Sharpton as a presidential candidate is not in our best interests...neither would be Colin Powell, Condi Rice or TD Jakes. I agree that if/when the 'right' one comes along...we'll NEED to unify and support him/her...but that doesn't mean that the ONLY one who comes by is the right one. He is not the right one...and it's of his own doing.

Name: ImJustAsking

Comment: MO< the reason you haven't "heard" how Al affects the political machine in our favor is b/c you REFUSE to listen to what I'm saying. I have REPEATEDLY listed how he helps the debate and there is no way you can't see it. Of course no white candidate is gonna come out and say "yeah, I got this idea from Sharpton" but if you watch closely you can see it for yourself. Also, even though Sharpton is a minister, when he is in a political debate I can't say I have ever seen him actively paint himself as the candidate of morals. He left that up to George Bush and 'nem (and you see how that turned out). Sharpton normally tries to remain objective when it comes to people's personal dealings and that may be indeed b/c he realizes that his past is checkered so who is he to talk? I wish Bush felt the same way. Whether or not you feel someone has morals or ethics that are up to your standards does not mean their opinions and ideas have no merit. And, as far as me being offended by your portrayal of him, it has nothing to do with me being a fan. I simply took umbrage to someone as articulate as he being made into somebody who talks like "what had happened was..." You are helping white America paint him into a caricature that unfairly discredits him but makes them SUPER comfortable so they don't have to admit when he's right. I don't like everything that Sharpton does but his life is highly comparmentalized so I can give him credit where credit is due and disagree with him when I believe he's wrong. So on the issue of him using the presidential election as a platform, I support that. And you still didn't answer my question about what issues your dream candidate would talk about and what their solutions would be to those challenges...how can you critize candidates for not saying/doing what you want when you yourself don't know what you'd want them to say/do? And also, while you are telling me what you want, please tell me how that person can accomplish that without sacrificing any of their integrity...b/c I guarantee you, in our current political system it is pretty much impossible to be forthright all the time.

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: Sacrificing integrity is different from criminal conduct. There is something "criminal" about Sharpton's history that is separate and distinct from the conventional sacrifices of integrity in regards to politics. It's an important distinction. As for the debates, we'll have to agree to disagree as to whether his input affects the subsequent Democratic agenda and whether he holds enough Black votes in his back pocket to make the eventual nominee come to him. Historically, the numbers don't support the premise he does. If he pulled some real percentages in the primaries (like Jesse did) then he wields that clout. I know that all candidates have to moderate themselves and their personal beliefs, but no candidate has to willingly shoot themselves in the foot consistently with conduct outside of the public speeches. If you could take the oratory and fire of Al Sharpton and put it into someone more credible, more integrity in the true sense of the word, more of a legitimate pedigree and more consistency in maintaining a high character...then you have something. Like I've argued...it's not what Sharpton says or attempts to do...it's the fact that his 'other' stuff ends up negating his efforts. You can't take only the parts you like of him...you have to take ALL of him, especially in politics.

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: Lastly, America doesn't PAINT Al as a caricature...he IS a caricature. He had/has his own reality TV show. He's made guest appearances on Saturday Night Live and many movies in a self-deprecating fashion. He basically played "himself" on Law & Order. That's not "America"...that's "Al". Check his credits on IMDB.com.

Name: ImJustAsking

Comment: Mo< I BEG YOU, BEG YOU, BEG YOU to please pay close attention to what I’m saying b/c you continue to address points that I’m not making. My point is as simple as this: During a debate, when Sharpton steps up to that microphone and answers a question, and the moderator turns to the other candidates and says, “how do you respond to that?” At that point in time, Sharpton has SERVED HIS PURPOSE. He does not need clout. He does not need a constituency. He does not need votes in his “pocket.” The other candidates do not need to “come to him” for anything – the fact that they steal his ideas and run with them is what we need. The fact that he forces them to address a controversial issue is what we need. As far as him making fun of himself, do you watch the Colbert Report? Do you watch the Daily Show? I mean, you can’t win an election without sitting across from Jon Stewart and letting him make a fool out of you. Your bias is showing. And are fiscal responsibility and corruption the so-called ‘black’ issues for which your dream candidate should be stumping?

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: Uh, you obviously haven't seen his appearances on Saturday Night Live and such. He parodies himself. Nobody said he wasn't articulate and intellectually astute. But he does not comport himself like a respectable politician the majority of the time. He can debate with the best of them...and I have addressed this, but his asking a question or two that has candidates respond to doesn't mean much. If it did, (like I've been saying) then Kerry/Edwards would have to incorporate his agenda into their platform. They didn't...so Sharpton accomplished what? He asked the question(s)...and? Once again, it's about advancement, not rhetoric. Big difference. I don't care if he asks 25 questions about Katrina in this years debates, but if it doesn't translate to Democratic action...it means nothing. Historically (i.e. the facts) Al hasn't brokered anything with Democratic nominees so he's spinning his (and your) wheels.

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: The fact is...Kerry/Edwards ignored him. He did dismally in the primaries and will likely do worse this time around. Sharpton has a good showing at a debate and you're pleased? C'mon...you're reaching.

Name: musbdherbs

Comment: IJA...don't worry he won't listen. I think two statement sum it up: "Whether or not you feel someone has morals or ethics that are up to your standards does not mean their opinions and ideas have no merit." AND "Contrary to what you believe you are NOT the standard-bearer on what's unacceptable...cuz in the end..it's your opinion." Again, your only interest is in being right.

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: Uh, nobody said I was the standard-bearer...thanks for attributing something erroneous to me. And yes, having morals and ethics greatly impacts any moral and ethical debate. Get real, you're not trying to argue that one is mutually exclusive of the other...really? Seriously? Truly? You're saying that if I went out and got arrested for guns and drugs...after ALL I've soap boxed in this column that wouldn't be relevant? C'mon 'Herbs...you don't seriously believe that. And let's turn this thing on its head. If Al "could" win...and he did win...would you HONESTLY want him as your President of the United States? Honestly here. I'm talking in terms of the budget, foreign policy, housing and urban development...ALL of it.

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: And I would argue that both that if you WANT him as your president, you're asking for trouble and if you don't...then his participation (irrespective of whether he can win) is unnecessary. Still waiting for someone to answer my questions as to how he IMPACTS the agenda, other than asking questions at a debate. Still waiting for an answer as to how his own immorality doesn't impact his own argument FOR morality.

Name: ImJustAsking

Comment: Musb< yes those two lines sum it up and now I am giving up. I hung in here ‘long as I could.

Name: ImJustAsking

Comment: Just this last thing, Mo, the answer to your last post is ^^^ there. Read my response to YlawdY. And for the record, Musb and I have never said we want Al to be President in fact we were making a different point, but then again you know that, you just won't admit it. Anyhoo, I have stated many times that my person for ’08 was Mark Warner or Wesley Clark. Neither of them are running, so now I have no candidate that I am passionate about. But thanks for asking.

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: I never said you wanted Al to be president...I CLEARLY posed the question. Since neither of use feels the other person is reading the posts...this is a lost cause. But I will say, that I've given more factual information than you two have as to how effective/ineffective Al is a politician. Great orator, poor politician. If this were a church sermon...he'd win going away. But we're talking about political change. But...even in the church, pastors mired in scandal usually have problems maintaining their congregations. Read (hypocrisy) Ted Haggard Jim Bakker Jimmy Swaggert etc.

Name: MorrisOKelly

Comment: In a semi-related segue...check out what Sen. Biden said about Barack Obama (and indirectly about Sharpton and Jackson). Pretty interesting. He just doomed his presidential bid. __________ http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/01/biden_on_ obama_.html

Name: rikyrah

Comment: But, Mr. Kelly, Senator Biden said Senator Obama was 'clean'. I bet his wife is happy to know that a grown-%*$ed man is ' clean'. Ugh.

Click here to post your comments.

Back to the Article » Click Here

...