Presidential Politics '04: The "Black Vote" Does it Exist?

[AKA2D '91]

http://64.4.14.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_l...%2fimpact04%2f

[abaici]

I still believe Dean is electable. I guess because I am really involved in the campaign, I have a little more faith. Remember, Clinton did not out and out secure the nomination until June.

Regarding the Kerry bandwagon. People are joining the Kerry bandwagon because he is the "frontrunner". He's not electable. If he makes it to the general election against Bush, he will be eaten alive. How can he offer himself as an alternative to Bush when he voted for the war, No Child Left Behind, the new healthcare bill, etc? Bush will call him out quick, fast, and in a hurry.

As for voting and the issue of religion vs. race. I don't know about that. I am a Christian. However, I do not believe in legislating morality. I am pro-choice on paper. However, that's a personal choice. I believe abortion is wrong for ME. I cannot tell a woman what to do with her body. As a woman, I cannot do that. Is it important that your president is a Christian? I would like for him/her to be. However, the Lord is my head, not the president. As for Bush representing the interests of Christians, I do not agree. He's a Christian in name. Yes, he opposes gay marriages and abortion. However, where is his compassion! How can you consider yourself a Christian and support and forward an agenda that is divisive and devoid of basic human compassion?

[AKA2D '91]

From Yahoo News:

John Kerry's three-state weekend rout, capped by his coast to victory in Maine, pushed him closer to the Democratic nomination and left his rivals scrambling to find a way to stop the front-runner.

If he gets the nomination, who should he tap as his running mate? Do you think he will choose any of his current competitors?

[TonyB06]

Originally posted by AKA2D '91
From Yahoo News:

John Kerry's three-state weekend rout, capped by his coast to victory in Maine, pushed him closer to the Democratic nomination and left his rivals scrambling to find a way to stop the front-runner.

If he gets the nomination, who should he tap as his running mate? Do you think he will choose any of his current competitors?

although I thought J. Edwards might be more of a challenge, conventional wisdom would suggest he might be Kerry's choice ----> a family background story that would likely be well received, decent Senate record, moderate conservative from the South (which, to hear analysts tell it) is Kerry's weakest region.

I wouldn't rule out W. Clark, but Edwards would seem a plausible and safer (at this point) choice.

[Sistermadly]

Politicians can (and do) change their minds, but so far the only person to say that he would accept the veep slot is Howard Dean.

There's some talk that Kerry might tap Evan Bayh, the "centrist" (read Republican-lite) senator from Indiana.

Looks like I'm going to have to hold my nose and vote for Kerry come November. Dang, it's like choosing between a slap upside the head and a punch in the gut. I keep hoping Howard Dean might pull of a Clintonian/Carteresque miracle, and I suppose anything is possible, I just don't know if it's probable. I still don't like Dean, but the more I read about his positions (and how the media has singlehandedly canonized John Kerry), the more I'm leaning toward voting for him on Super Tuesday.

[TonyB06]

Originally posted by Sistermadly
Politicians can (and do) change their minds, but so far the only person to say that he would accept the veep slot is Howard Dean.

There's some talk that Kerry might tap Evan Bayh, the "centrist" (read Republican-lite) senator from Indiana.

Looks like I'm going to have to hold my nose and vote for Kerry come November. Dang, it's like choosing between a slap upside the head and a punch in the gut. I keep hoping Howard Dean might pull of a Clintonian/Carteresque miracle, and I suppose anything is possible, I just don't know if it's probable. I still don't like Dean, but the more I read about his positions (and how the media has singlehandedly canonized John Kerry), the more I'm leaning toward voting for him on Super Tuesday.

SM,
Strategically, being from next door Vermont what would Dean add to the ticket? I know Clinton/Gore bucked the theory in '92, but Clinton had a political charisma that Kerry doesn't (or so it seems). Exempting 92 and 96, Ds have done badly in the South for years. IMO, Kerry needs a Southerner or Southwestener (Richardson-N.Mexico?) to broaden the ticket's appeal.

(but, hey, G.W.B chose and subsequently has kept Cheney on the ticket from electoral college-rich Wyoming so maybe it might work out)

...I'd say look at my bruh Kwame Kilpatrick (Mayor of Detroit) but America ain't ready yet for a VP that can rock the four-button.

[AKA2D '91]

Kerry Romps in South; Clark Dropping Out
14 minutes ago

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

FAIRFAX, Va. - His front-runner status bolstered by dual Southern victories, John Kerry (news - web sites) is looking to Wisconsin to dispatch the dwindling field of Democratic presidential rivals still clinging to hope.


Kerry's strong victories in Virginia and Tennessee on Tuesday chased one Southern-bred rival from the race. Wesley Clark (news - web sites) of Arkansas ended his bid after dismal third-place showings, while runner-up John Edwards (news - web sites) of North Carolina said he would not quit.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...l_pr/democrats

[Sistermadly]

From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Black women form backbone of Democratic Party support

By GAYLE WHITE
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 02/14/04

Janice Liddell could be describing a romance when she talks about her relationship with the ballot box and the Democratic Party.
_
At first she resisted getting involved. When she finally relented, she was filled with excitement and passion. Now, 28 years later, she is committed and comfortable.
_
A self-described "radical" who tried to dress the part with a big Afro and a lot of fringed suede, Liddell, 55, spent her college years on the edges of the Black Panther movement. She didn't trust the political system, and she never voted.
_
That changed in 1976, when her father, a Toledo, Ohio, barber who had marched on Washington with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., told her he believed in a candidate named Jimmy Carter. She cast her first ballot that year in Ann Arbor, Mich., where she was a graduate student. She remembers thinking, "My vote is going to help elect the president."
_
She hasn't missed a chance to vote for a Democrat since — a pattern that places her, along with her African-American sisters, at the core of the party's constituency. Studies of voting patterns show that black women are the most loyal Democrats of any demographic group.
_
"I think what the Democrats represent is much more in keeping with what black folks want in this country," said Liddell, a playwright and director of the center for faculty development at Clark Atlanta University.
_
Mary Parker, 76, a retired cafeteria worker in Reynolds, a town surrounded by cotton fields in rural Middle Georgia, puts it more plainly: "It looks to me like the Democrats always treat colored people better than the Republicans."
_
Their enthusiasm — and that of other black women — for the party nominee could determine the next occupant of the Oval Office.
_
In Georgia's 2000 Democratic presidential primary, 31 percent of the voters were black women — the highest percentage of any group. And in the 2000 general election, 94 percent of African-American female voters — regardless of age, geography or economic status — voted for Al Gore, according to an analysis by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a Washington-based African-American think tank.
_
Difference makers
_
In some important states, African-American women made the difference for the Democrats in 2000, said Yvonne Scruggs-Leftwich, an author, political consultant and former deputy mayor of Philadelphia. In Illinois, the white vote split almost evenly between Gore and George W. Bush, she said, but the 10 percent of voters who were black women pushed Gore over the top with 54 percent.
_
Black women not only tend to vote Democratic, but those who are the organizers in their churches and neighborhoods also volunteer in voter registration drives, pass out campaign literature and get people to the polls on Election Day.
_
That means they can deliver not only their own votes, but those of others.
_
"The challenge to the Democratic Party," said Scruggs-Leftwich, "is to keep these women committed."
_
Republicans say they would like to attract more African-American women, adding to their rolls and chipping away at the Democratic base. They are slowly making inroads, said Scott Rials, executive director of the Georgia GOP.
_
Black women "have the same problems as everybody else," he said. "You have to appeal to them around the kitchen table, through issues like jobs, health care and education. You have to have a total package."
_
Doug Heyl, an Atlanta-based Democratic political consultant, agrees that real-life issues are the way to black women's votes. He, of course, thinks Democratic front-runner Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and runner-up Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina are better equipped to meet their needs than President Bush.
_
"African-American women are looking for candidates who understand everyday people's lives," he said. "A campaign's job is to say, 'I understand your lives, your hopes, your dreams.' I think the Kerry and Edwards campaigns are doing that effectively."
_
Joyce Turner, 45, a computer instructor at DeKalb Technical College, said she'd be looking at how candidates address health care and education before casting her vote in Georgia's March 2 presidential primary.
_
She's a Chicago native and lifelong Democrat who says she thinks Democrats are more attuned to the needs of women and families than Republicans.
_
"I have children," she said. "When I vote, I'm not just voting for myself. I'm voting for their future."
_
Demographics of the black community affect both turnout and voter agendas, said David Bositis, a researcher with the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.
_
One reason for higher participation among black women than black men is that a greater percentage of black men — more than 20 percent in some Southern states — are convicted felons and have lost their right to vote, he said. His claim is supported by a 1998 study by the Sentencing Project, an advocacy organization for prisoners' rights, and Human Rights Watch, an organization that monitors human rights internationally.
_
The high percentage of single women raising children makes issues such as child care more critical, he said.
_
"People talk about the Democrats being the Mommy Party and the Republicans being the Daddy Party," he said. "The Democratic Party does emphasize domestic issues such as health care, education and child care. Those are issues that women are more concerned about than men."
_
Young aren't so loyal
_
Some of the commitment to the Democrats is historical. African-American voters, once loyal to the party of Lincoln, began favoring Democrats during Franklin D. Roosevelt's administrations. That trend was reinforced when Democrats pushed through civil rights legislation in the 1960s.
_
Marianne Clarke, 64, an Atlanta media consultant and retired Columbia University professor, recalls casting her first vote for John F. Kennedy.
_
"I was awed with Kennedy and with Jackie," she said. "He brought in a whole new generation of voters."
_
Hattye Brown, 83, a retired teacher and school administrator in Taylor County, recalls hearing about poll taxes and literacy tests that kept many African-Americans from voting. She's passionate about voting and about encouraging others to vote.
_
"I always like to vote for the Democrat," she said. "I don't think anybody could change my mind."
_
Younger black women may not be so loyal. The civil rights movement seems long past to young women who are doing well professionally and financially.
_
"There definitely is emerging a more independent mind-set among young black women," said Felicia Davis of Jonesboro, a member of the advisory board of the Black Women's Roundtable, a national project that encourages participation in the political process.
_
Images of Condoleezza Rice, a black woman who serves as national security adviser to a Republican president, don't "go past young black women," she said.
_
Davis describes herself as a "progressive Republican" but said she voted "very much as an independent." She is raising a very active and independent-minded daughter who started a club called Future Voters of America.
_
"From what I've heard, African-American women feel as if the Republican Party is a lot of white men," said Mary Wilhite, 44, of Canton, who was raised by Democrats in Chicago but is a Republican. "That's not what I've experienced. I've had the opportunity to be heard."
_
Wilhite, who coordinates a faith-based community development organization, said she thought African-American women — who she said had "been led down the Democratic road for so long" — were becoming more open to alternatives.
_
Scruggs-Leftwich, a Democratic voter whose mother was secretary of the New York State Republican Convention, said, "It's almost as if the pendulum is swinging back."
_
Older women are remaining with the Democratic Party, she said, "but I am not seeing their ranks being backfilled by young African-American women. ._._. Many of them are identifying themselves as independent."
_
Shon Payton, 30, a DeKalb County state employee, said she based her vote on the candidate, not party affiliation. "Who is going to benefit me to have in office?" she asks.
_
Willie May Roberts, 30, a housekeeper and laundress at a Jonesboro nursing home, voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. She'll vote this year, but has not decided for whom.
_
"I always feel like my vote is the one that makes a difference," she said.
_
To boost their chances in November, Democrats need to lock in as many votes of black women as possible.
_
"What they need to do is hit on issues that speak to black women," said Jeremy Mayer, author of "Running on Race — Racial Politics in Presidential Campaigns, 1960-2000." "We are such an evenly divided nation that if one side whips up its troops, it's going to be very hard to beat."
_
Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0204/15women.html

[Steeltrap]

From the Village Voice. This has some interesting points, but I sort of disagree with it because I want to vote for a pro-business DLC Demo (although I'm an independent).

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0407/davis.php

features


It's Time to Call for New Black Leadership
We Need You
by Thulani Davis
February 18 - 24, 2004


For the moment, Reverend Al Sharpton will probably be able to keep his job as self-appointed spokesman for African Americans in the race for Democratic presidential nominee. Although some say he will be hurt in the New York primary by recent Voice articles about his ties to Republican strategist Roger Stone, the most obstinate black voters will vote for him anyway because they still want to be heard. When Larry King asked a dumbfounded TV panel last week why Sharpton would stay in the race, they all overlooked the obvious: The most recent front-runner, John Kerry, has never had to slow down long enough to even acknowledge the devastation in communities of color wreaked by George W. Bush. Since the pundits only talk numbers and not about what candidates are saying, it will be hard to catch anyone asking the likely Democratic nominee about issues such as the loss of jobs, access to decent public education, a national epidemic of police brutality, the domestic threat presented by the USA Patriot Act, increased homelessness since welfare "reform," and the disproportionately high number of black and Latino youth serving in the war in Iraq.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But should Kerry hang in there, the question will remain who he will deal with, having gotten this far without being forced to build support in black communities. Rather than Sharpton, the charismatic black member of Congress from Memphis, Harold Ford Jr., Kerry's national co-chair, may be the one who determines how much time black voters' issues will get. Regardless of the outcome over the next few months, the determination of what is on the Democratic Party agenda will be a game played strictly at the top of the food chain.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The problem of black leadership is not Sharpton, but a lack of other voices outside of the presidential contests who could exert enough influence on the Democratic Party to stem the rightward drift that has sacrificed our interests. Sharpton particularly took aim at the Clintonian Democratic Leadership Council because the group authored the ape-the-Republicans strategy of recent years.

The dearth of national black leadership in an era of mushrooming media means that Sharpton had to run for president to become a nationally known black leader—and he could be doing so simply for that reason. (This is one case where losing can provide more than a year of steady publicity.) All other black household names these days are folks who turn up on Entertainment Tonight. Maybe that's why rap mogul Russell Simmons sees his fame as a form of "electability" for national black leadership, and on the flip side, intellectual spokesmen such as Cornel West and Michael Eric Dyson or former NAACP head Ben Chavis Muhammad have found hip-hop a likely arena for their ideas. Is this our leadership selection process?

If aspiring black (or white) leaders wish to tough it out by trying to get elected somewhere as a route to political change, they will find that redistricting across the country to secure existing Democratic and Republican congressional seats has made it extremely hard to even get in a race. Numbers show that the rate of increase in blacks being elected to office—federal to local—has slowed to the level of 1970.

Sharpton has had his wish and followed the lead of Jesse Jackson into presidential politics, but it's pretty clear that black voters are getting less and less out of this form of political exercise. "Sharpton has gotten an incredibly small share of the black vote compared to Jesse Jackson," says David A. Bositis, senior research associate at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (JCPES). In 1988, "Jackson basically got all of the black vote and some of the white vote."

For a running-to-lose strategy to result in leverage, he says, "it has to be a credible candidate. They have to bring something to the table. When Jesse ran in 1984 and '88, he brought a lot to the table—he was well liked, he was a very good organizer, and encouraged grassroots organizing all over the country. There was a very substantial increase in the black vote, in large part due to his efforts and the inspiration his candidacy brought. Sharpton didn't have the greatest reputation to begin with and didn't engage in any organization-building. He hasn't done anything to increase black turnout." Well, Sharpton's GOP credit card would explain his failure to make any organizational effort to register African American Democrats.

Indeed, in numbers, Sharpton has brought no more black folks to the polls than the negatively inspiring George W. Bush. While black turnout during the primaries has been good, or "decent," according to Bositis, compared with generally low turnout over the past few years, it doesn't match the numbers when Jackson last ran in 1988. In 2004, the black share of the vote in the Virginia primary was 33 percent, 47 percent in South Carolina, and 23 percent in Tennessee, all significant numbers. According to Bositis, more blacks came out to vote during Jackson's second run—in Tennessee for instance, 576,000 voted in '88, as opposed to 360,000 this year.

It's time to throw out some of these cult-of-celebrity tactics and go back to organizing around the real needs in our communities. If this is a really difficult time to raise funds through weekly meetings, as Sharpton's financial woes at the National Action Network prove, then perhaps the next leaders will take a page from Howard Dean and get 600,000 e-mail contacts for the disgruntled and underserved black body politic.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Kevin Powell, writer and activist, grew up in Jersey City and attended Rutgers University in the late 1980s. He later was made famous by MTV's The Real World, but Powell had become a student activist at Rutgers, working on voter registration and in the anti-apartheid movement. He has managed, while putting out a steady flow of books, to devote himself to political and social issues. He has organized black and Latino youth in New York City's welfare hotels and now heads up a Brooklyn group called Hip Hop Speaks.

"For me, coming of age in the 1980s," he says, "the two things that hit me were Jackson running for president and the emergence of Louis Farrakhan. If you did not grow up in a politically active household, you did not really have any relationship to black leadership, except maybe for the local preacher. I didn't know a black person could run for president—my integrated school didn't teach me about Shirley Chisholm. Fast-forward 20 years: In retrospect, neither Farrakhan nor Jackson had a concrete agenda for black people. What we got was a lot of gloss. . . . Jackson got 7 million votes, and it seemed that we could have gotten something for that, but what seemed to happen is that the decision moved from a collective choice to an individual choice.

"The collective mind-set of the 1960s deteriorated into the selfishness of the '80s and '90s. All that excitement they created didn't come with any programs. Malcolm and Martin had some programmatic ideas, and a philosophical strength that wasn't manifested in the '80s. Jackson—his actions said it was really about him. With Farrakhan and all that rhetoric about creating black products and getting black men to D.C.—nothing happened. That's not a program. Then to now, leadership is also so woefully male-centered. And in terms of jobs, education, housing, we are worse off than in the civil rights era. I don't think it's a coincidence that so many young people look at these leaders and scoff. There's no agenda. It's an embarrassment."

Gloria Richardson Dandridge led a movement in Cambridge, Maryland, that started with protests in March 1963 and ended with the National Guard posted around the black Second Ward in some capacity for a year. She and 80 other protesters were arrested in the process, but they won a precedent-setting group of victories: new housing, school integration, jobs in health services, and more. One of the unique aspects of that movement is that they did not fight for just one change, but for the whole life of the community. She is currently a program officer in the New York City Department for the Aging.

Asked about Sharpton's run for president, Dandridge says, "He can't just go down South and think everybody is going to vote for him. People have their own local ties and interests that may come first." Dandridge says the distinction between civil rights leader and politician is important. "As a politician you're supposed to stay around and build on that, so you have to compromise or make exchanges. You can't jump from being a politician to being a civil rights leader. . . . Sharpton's campaigning now, and this kid has been shot in Brooklyn, and he's not here to respond.

"I think his group gives him money on Sundays. I don't think they have an analysis. He's an excellent speaker, and great on TV, but in terms of being a civil rights leader and always there, it's not working anymore.

"Most people think leaders crop up like Topsy and need special things—a mythmaking aura. Now, with moveon.org and some of the organizations coming up against globalization and racism and drawing different kinds of people, I don't think going celebrity is going to work. Celebrities don't have time or energy—or the know-how, as we saw with Russell Simmons going up to Albany on the Rockefeller drug laws. Their egos carry them so far, and I don't know what kind of reality testing there is with that. There have to be a lot of ordinary people from different places—leadership comes out of that. One of the key things is listening, not just that charismatic leadership where you just get up and talk and say you sympathize and that's it."

Most of the organizations begun during the civil rights era have had trouble holding on to their relevance and their funding in the past 40 years. The NAACP, which certainly gave the country its share of leaders, was nearly moribund in the 1970s, and then was rocked by scandal under then reverend Ben Chavis in the '90s. It has since rebounded, under the leadership of president Kweisi Mfume and board chair Julian Bond, into a $50 million organization, primarily through backing from Verizon, Bank of America, and Wachovia Bank. Is new leadership arising from this more corporate version of a civil rights group? Time will tell.

One of the most compelling reasons that the future may be long on leaders like Sharpton who can fly by the seat of their pants and who make financial deals that may be at variance with Democratic voters is that competing for elected office is increasingly difficult. According to a 2002 Wall Street Journal report, at least 87 of the 435 U.S. House members had no major-party challenger in 2000, and only about 30 races were competitive. Computer-driven gerrymandering used to take place only once a decade but now occurs much more frequently in many states. The 2000 House elections were the least competitive since 1988, and according to the Center for Voting and Democracy, the House elections near the end of this decade may be the least competitive in history.

In 2002, only four House incumbents lost to challengers—the fewest ever, and more than 80 percent of seats were won by landslide margins. Three out of every four who had relatively close races in 2000 ran in 2002 in districts redrawn favorably for their party. According to a study from the JCPES, which covers federal, state, municipal, and local officials, the number of black male elected politicians declined between 1998 and 2001. The only gains were made by black women.

It must also be said that black leadership has been systematically assailed over the years. While we are sometimes reminded of the attacks on leaders across the country in the 1960s, official investigations have been a way of life for blacks in public office ever since. People of color appointed by President Bill Clinton were hounded out of office or prevented from assuming jobs as cabinet members and federal judges. And let us not forget the retribution doled out to former Georgia representative Cynthia McKinney for questioning U.S. intelligence on the 9-11 attacks. Republicans in Atlanta crossed party lines to vote against her in the Democratic primary.

For the moment, though, Julian Bond, for one, is upbeat on the subject of black leadership, pointing to the role played in recent days by pols like South Carolina representative James Clyburn. "And there are other leadership types," he says, "making noise and raising Cain all over the U.S.A." However, he adds, "there is the interesting side debate about the 'hip-hop' versus the 'sit-in generation,' although I have to say as a presumed member of the latter, I have never heard anyone in my age cohort define us that way. In fact, I find it a curiously one-sided debate—with the hip-hoppers arguing against their elders but not offering any rationale for why they ought to be taken seriously as 'leaders' or 'innovators' or as serious challengers to African Americans' status in life."

Maybe the divide is not so great. Youth are skeptical of authority, but that doesn't mean they can't separate the real from the rest. As Kevin Powell puts it, "To be a black leader, you've got to have a level of integrity and selflessness. You cannot participate in the commodification of black leadership. You can't treat young voters as if they're people buying CDs." While there are those trying to organize youth from large stages with rap stars, others like Powell are at work on the ground. "It's very difficult," he says of putting on public forums. "We were getting 500 to 2,000 people out, but we had a hard time getting money to pay for the events. But with the hip-hop generation, it's all about the hustle—we don't let that stop us."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It has been a boon to those watching the debates that Sharpton was there chiding the party to honor its roots, along with Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, and Carol Moseley Braun, but Sharpton and Moseley Braun proved that black voters are not waiting for a black candidate to do as Jesse did—win 7 million votes, register 2 million, and not get any understanding from the nominee.

The keen interest African American voters—particularly progressives—had in the Dean campaign serves notice that we also are looking for fresh ideas. Dean may be too temperamental to have his finger on any missiles, but he is not a retread of anybody else. Today's black leaders have been living in the shadows of the fallen—visionaries who can't be duplicated. A candidacy propped up—like Sharpton's—by help from folks who prefer to see the Democrats mired in their own contradictions is not a new idea. Black leaders are failing us for the same reason white leaders are failing us: They are not dealing with the problems on the ground. For the past 30 years too many have modeled their ideas of leadership on mythical icons.

Sharpton wanted to be the next Jesse Jackson, and Jesse Jackson wanted to be the next Martin Luther King Jr. Jesse Jackson Jr. probably also wants to be the next Jesse. Carol Moseley Braun was pegged the next Shirley Chisholm, whose chief significance as a black candidate is that she was the first. There are quite a few neo-Malcolms like Cornel West among the over-40 set, and Henry Louis Gates is out to be the new W.E.B. DuBois, but a televised one. Louis Farrakhan wanted to be the new Elijah Muhammad, and Chavis Muhammad looks to be grooming himself to be a new, kinder, gentler Farrakhan with sartorial touches from his hip-hop mogul boss, Russell Simmons.

At the margins we have the "new" Black Panthers and an array of Muslim sects ranging from progressive to regressive. Most of the remaining prominent black (and yes, male) voices out there "representing," such as Kweisi Mfume and Randall Robinson, give you a Malcolm-Martin stylistic mix. (No neo-Baldwins or -Rustins in this crew.)

We are way overdue for a change in black leadership—a few 21st-century originals or, better yet, many of them. We need young people with ideas who aren't just out to dine at Gallagher's with Roger Stone or make headlines by stripping in public. Does one have to say that the answer won't come from the cold warrior Condoleezza Rice or General Colin Powell, now tainted as an apologist for missing weapons of mass destruction?

When Julian Bond was 20 years old, he was one of hundreds of students who founded the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee in 1960. Asked today if a movement led by a single figure is most effective, Bond says, "They probably are more effective with one leader. Most people—whites, especially—like for there to be one leader. But I spent all my early years in SNCC arguing there shouldn't be one—that having one was dangerous, that many voices should be heard."

Kevin Powell, born in the 1960s, seems to agree: "It's got to be collective leadership. It's got to be holistic and be able to speak in these times. People born between 1956 and 1980, the hip-hop generation, we're the first generation to go to integrated schools—we grew up with crack and AIDS. Leadership has to be able to connect the dots. The day of the single leader is over. We've elevated Martin and Malcolm like they were the only people doing work. And that's not true."

Gloria Dandridge, who came of age in the 1940s, adds, "People think that leaders have to be known, or to already be made in a way. Young people need to go into urban areas and organize. Stay there and live in the area, foster that and make it grow."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What will Sharpton do when he returns here to the fold? That's hard to say. The other day I heard Councilman Charles Barron referred to on the radio as "the new Al Sharpton."

[TonyB06]

ST,
Very interesting article, particularly the discussion about where emerging black leadership will come from. Of couse, the broader question might well be asked what is "black leadership" anymore? and who decides who exercises direction? who listens to said direction? Is is the CBC delegation? established Af-Am organizations i.e. NAACP, Urban League? or local/regional leadership?

Anybody peeped Al Sharpton's voting numbers vis-a-vis the black electorate in these primaries? Dude is getting no love. Many consider him polarizing anyway so who knows how much of it is that, but folks are not going for the "you look like me," which I think has been the case for most of us under age 60 or so; who didn't live directly during the tumult of the civil rights era. (that isn't a slam on anyone over 60).

That's why I think a large segment of the black voting populace is ripe for new legitimate thinking by either political organization. But at present one party takes us for granted and the other whines about "group think mentality" so who knows?


....but at least I found out I'm part of the hip-hop generation (born between 1956-80)?

[Steeltrap]

Originally posted by TonyB06
ST,
Very interesting article, particularly the discussion about where emerging black leadership will come from. Of couse, the broader question might well be asked what is "black leadership" anymore? and who decides who exercises direction? who listens to said direction? Is is the CBC delegation? established Af-Am organizations i.e. NAACP, Urban League? or local/regional leadership?

Anybody peeped Al Sharpton's voting numbers vis-a-vis the black electorate in these primaries? Dude is getting no love. Many consider him polarizing anyway so who knows how much of it is that, but folks are not going for the "you look like me," which I think has been the case for most of us under age 60 or so; who didn't live directly during the tumult of the civil rights era. (that isn't a slam on anyone over 60).

That's why I think a large segment of the black voting populace is ripe for new legitimate thinking by either political organization. But at present one party takes us for granted and the other whines about "group think mentality" so who knows?


....but at least I found out I'm part of the hip-hop generation (born between 1956-80)?

on the hip-hop generation, too. I thought that was post-1970, not people who were born in 1964. LOL.
And good call about a large segment of our population being ripe for new legitimate thinking. I, too, have no idea where it will emerge from, because I see flaws in both major parties.
Plus I think it will continue to cleave along economic lines. I think the better-off among us may be more receptive to a new line of thought.

[Love_Spell_6]

I was going to start a new thread...but since its election related I decided to place it here...if not..I'm sure one of our friendly moderators will move it

It seems at this point that John Kerry will get the nomination...so I have a question for Christians that plan to vote for John Kerry....or anyone that wants to weigh in... Does your religious preference play a part in the candidate you choose? I know that 2 hot topics this election will be homosexual marriage and abortion always is... Many Christians read the Bible to mean that God burned a whole city for immoral sexual behavior...and also that abortion is murder.

So I was wondering if people set aside their religius views during election time...or do they choose a candidate most in line with what they believe. I ask this because I know many people that plan to vote for Kerry that are Christians...and I wonder how could this be?

Any discussion or feedback would be appreciated!

[TonyB06]

Originally posted by Love_Spell_6
I ask this because I know many people that plan to vote for Kerry that are Christians...and I wonder how could this be?

Any discussion or feedback would be appreciated!

LS6, Your question seems to suggest an incompatability in being a Christian and voting for Kerry. Am I mis-interpreting your statement?

For me, the choice is made on which candidates' positions, across a range of issues, best reflect my Christian beliefs. Don't think I've ever cast a vote based on a single issue.

What are candidates policies/position statements regarding children's issues? war/peace? family insitutional issues? homelessness? poverty alleviation efforts? elderly issues? single parent and family issues?

Secondly, does their rhetoric match their record? At this point in the process, R and D candidates will tell you anything; but everybody has a record and no 30-second commercial or cheorographed media blitz campaign can hide what that record is.

peace.

[Love_Spell_6]

Originally posted by TonyB06
LS6, Your question seems to suggest an incompatability in being a Christian and voting for Kerry. Am I mis-interpreting your statement?

For me, the choice is made on which candidates' positions, across a range of issues, best reflect my Christian beliefs. Don't think I've ever cast a vote based on a single issue.

What are candidates policies/position statements regarding children's issues? war/peace? family insitutional issues? homelessness? poverty alleviation efforts? elderly issues? single parent and family issues?

Secondly, does their rhetoric match their record? At this point in the process, R and D candidates will tell you anything; but everybody has a record and no 30-second commercial or cheorographed media blitz campaign can hide what that record is.

peace.

Thanks for your input TonyB06...
And yes the question I am posing is how one could vote for a candidate who stands for issues deemed "un-Christian" ... but I see your point that you don't vote on a single issue..

And you're also right about the media...I hope people don't form their opinions about a candidate based on negative ad-campaigning...its always spun to someone's advantage...

[Steeltrap]

I can just post a link to this Todd Boyd commentary regarding the "black vote"

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,2903430.story

Interesting stuff. Boyd, a professor at USC (my alma mater), points out that there are no AfAm politicians on the national stage who command serious respect. He also puts out something that many may find controversial: that we're moving more toward an individualized sense of being rather than a group identity, 40 years after the civil rights movement.