Obama Supporter Jesse Jackson: Only Edwards Is Paying Attention To Blacks
Jesse Jackson, an Obama supporter, had this to say about the Dem candidates in an Op ed piece in the Chicago Sun-Times today:
...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.
As Ben Smith notes, oddly enough Jackson makes no mention of Obama, the candidate he's backing in his Op ed. So his meaning seems pretty clear here.
Comments (31)
wot wrote on November 27, 2007 11:42 AM:Does he also mean this as a slight to Dennis Kucinich?
Anonymous wrote on November 27, 2007 11:51 AM:Typical backstabbing from Jackson. I think the black community has had enough of showboating, do-nothing leaders like Jackson and Sharpton.
Obama has a very strong urban agenda, and it has been compared favorably to Edwards' policy.
Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 12:01 PM:Poor Jesse, it probably hurts to be facing irrelevance.
Gus wrote on November 27, 2007 12:18 PM:What the hell is he backing Obama for then,
purely because of the color of his skin?
I wonder what his mentor MLK would think of this hypocrisy...
Regardless of what Jackson is trying to say, it is factually incorrect: other candidates besides John Edwards are indeed discussing African Americans.
EH wrote on November 27, 2007 12:29 PM:No comment on the story, but love the ad hominems and messenger-killing against Jackson. Way to take the high road.
Ben wrote on November 27, 2007 12:33 PM:I agree- why is Jackson supporting Obama if he is not addressing black issues? I think however, that the comments so far have been too critical of Jesse Jackson. It is absurd to refer to him as a "showboating, do-nothing leader." While this might be more applicable for Rev. Sharpton, it does not apply to Jackson who ran two highly successful campaigns for president in '84 and '88.
By bringing this issue up, Jackson is doing what he should do as someone with a high profile. He is putting pressure on the major candidates to address issues that relate to the black community as well as Edwards.
TC wrote on November 27, 2007 12:43 PM:What does he mean? This seems very strange for someone who is supporting a different Dem candidate.
votenic wrote on November 27, 2007 12:51 PM:2008 Presidential Candidate Weekly Poll
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.
Hey Greg,
Check out this link from just 2 days ago where Obama was talking about racial inequalities in Iowa( Yes, that Iowa, the one which is 97%):
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-112507-obama,0,5904014.story
Looks like Jesse is either not paying attention or he's got some ulterior motive. Given his history, I'd say it's the latter.
Michael wrote on November 27, 2007 1:04 PM:This racial divide thing has always irritated me. There are just as many poor white, hispanic, asian, eskimo, (I don't want to leave any racial group out, but I am sure that I did) with the same economic, educational and class challenges as the black community. Why not unite and address all people's issues regardless of race or gender as opposed to a select group, which only widens the divide between groups and therefore weakens their political power. I think the days of the sharptons and the jacksons are over. Obama really has changed the dynamic and I think for the better for all people regardless of race or gender.
kjoe wrote on November 27, 2007 1:23 PM:Jesse jackson has a lot of expertise regarding the Clinton administration of 1993-2001. Since that is the basis for so much of hillary's experience, Jackson could serve the dialogue well by talking about such things as the failure of healthcare reform, the passing of a major item on the republican agenda---welfare reform, (there was an article today about some parts of the reform being so extreme that Rudy Giuliani opposed them)and the Clintons' attitude about the effectiveness of the death penalty as exemplified by the execution of Ricky Rector, a black man who shot so much of his own brain out that his iq dropped to 70.
EH wrote on November 27, 2007 1:52 PM:Michael: That all would be nice, but why should it be Jesse or Sharpton's job? It's not fair to make them the story here, and I'd dare say that it's intellectually lazy to fall back on personality politics rather than the substance of their words.
And are we going to have to endure "votenic" spam for the next year?
kjoe wrote on November 27, 2007 1:59 PM:votenic wrote on November 27, 2007 12:51 PM:
2008 Presidential Candidate Weekly Poll
www.votenic.com
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.
Beware those bogus "online" polls.
--David Kurtz
Beware those bogus "online" polls.
--David Kurtz
Beware those bogus "online" polls.
--David Kurtz
Beware those bogus "online" polls.
--David Kurtz
Beware those bogus "online" polls.
--David Kurtz
Beware those bogus "online" polls.
--David Kurtz
Beware those bogus "online" polls.
--David Kurtz
Beware those bogus "online" polls.
--David Kurtz
Beware those bogus "online" polls.
--David Kurtz
Beware those bogus "online" polls.
--David Kurtz
Beware those bogus "online" polls.
--David Kurtz
Good point EH.
pacc wrote on November 27, 2007 2:02 PM:Maybe Jesse has got a point.
So far, the most visible efforts the O-Bomb-A campaign has made comes n the form of Michelle O-Bomb-A's race baiting, and O-Bomb-A pitting gay America against black America with the O-Bomb-A gay-bashing tour.
Maybe that's why Senator Clinton is overwhelmingly popular with black voters, drawing higher approval ratings than O-Bomb-A - this, according to a study released today by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.
Maybe that's why nearly 80 black ministers, representing congregations across the northern part of S. Carolina endorsed Senator Clinton today.
Yeah, maybe Jesse has got a point. After all, Jesse has more experience than BO does.
EH wrote on November 27, 2007 2:12 PM:...and so what is the point behind the spelling of "O-Bomb-A?" I can't really discern your point from that distraction, but I gather the thrust is that you are a Hillary supporter?
pacc wrote on November 27, 2007 2:24 PM:EH,
I see that you've chosen to disregard my observations about Jesse Jackson and the O-Bomb-A campaign's cynical, racist attitude toward black voters.
Regarding your question, I use the moniker O-Bomb-A as an apt reminder of the way O-Bomb-A continually bombs in candidate debates (as I've noted before when other people have asked why I use O-Bomb-A), e.g. with his comments about bombing Iran, or invading Pakistan, or taxing middle income American, or waffling over immigration matters, and so forth.
It's also a bit of a cautionary tale of just how badly O-Bomb-A could be expected to bomb if he were on the national ticket, where the Repiglicans would rip him apart over his shady, kickback dealings with that slumlord Rezko, and more recently his fraud over campaign ethics and illegal PAC funneling of lobbyist money.
We Democrats want to win back the White House in 2008. Not only do Democrats of every stripe reject the O-Bomb-A brand of ugly race baiting and gay bashing, but O-Bomb-A (and his big-mouthed, loose cannon of a wife) are way too much of a risk to have on the national ticket.
Michael wrote on November 27, 2007 2:29 PM:pacc, that was a very funny post. Way too funny. I especially like the part about a "big-mouthed, loose cannon of a wife." Does that remind anyone of somebody we know? Anyone? Anyone?
I guess pacc one wasn't for clinton I either. Other than the debate issue, which is debatable, the rest of the post fits clinton I like a glove. Way too funny.
oleeb wrote on November 27, 2007 2:30 PM:Jesse DOES have a point and he is correct. The only major candidate for the Democratic nomination for President who has made poverty a central issue is John Edwards. Because poverty is a central issue for the African American community nationwide that means he also is the only one paying any substantial attention to the plight of African Americans. This just cannot be disputed.
In terms of Obama and Clinton particularly, neither of them has focused on or made poverty a central issue in their campaigns. They just haven't. That is not to say they have had nothing to say, but nobody can dispute the fact that poverty is not high on their campaign agenda and thus one cannot assume it will be any higher on their agenda if elected.
It's good that Jackson has pointed this out. Despite all his well known faults, he still speaks with authority about the issue of poverty and for those who have no other voice because there are no longer any prominent Democrats (other than Edwards) who consistently speak up for the poor and few national African American leaders either--not to mention Ministers, Priests, and so forth. In all these categories, the leadership on poverty has been notably and iunexcusably absent for a long time.
Perhaps Jackson's criticism will spark some interest by Obama and Clinton in addressing poverty in the United States in a meaningful way. I'm not going to hold my breath though. Centrists never focus on the poor or the African Americans.
Mike wrote on November 27, 2007 2:39 PM:I disagree that poverty is a central issue for African-Americans. Polls show that African-Americans are concerned about most of the same issues that white Americans are concerned about: health care, economy/jobs, and Iraq. Poverty always places way down on the list (2-3%) in most polls.
Anonymous wrote on November 27, 2007 2:55 PM:The truth is that if Obama went around constantly embracing the "urban agenda" like Jesse Jackson did when he ran for president, Obama would be at about the same place in the polls as Jackson. And I say this as someone who voted for Jackson in the primary. Not to mention that Obama would be completley ignored and derided by the media, which has already ignored and trivilized John Edward's campaign.
I think Jesse knows this, and that he wasn't really taking a shot at Obama as much as he was decrying the fact that in America, in order to be taken seriously by the media and by big doners, you have to basically ignore the issues of race and poverty. You have to pretend that America is populated exclusively by white, middle class soccer moms and nascar dads who basically don't want to hear about race or poverty, and who will turn against you if you say anything about it.
Goldspinner wrote on November 27, 2007 3:39 PM:SHOWBOATING? Most of us who happen to be black tend to agree with Reverend Jackson and Reverend Sharpton. But for Sharpton (and other members of the African Amrerican community), the MSM media would have continued to ignore the debacle in Jena, Louisiana. How long did it take for the Jena 6 to be noted on this blog? If Jackson not run for president and sucessfully carried states with low numbers of minorities, Obama would not be taken seriously as a candidate. Obama owes a huge debt to Shirley Chisholm, as well. We'll decide who speaks for us, thank you very much.
Why do you think the MSM discounts Edwards? Thanks to Clintonian policies such as NAFTA more Americans of all colors live in poverty. Even with Obama's activist bona fides, he needs to be more vocal about economic issues that those of us in fly-over country deeply care about.
some dude named steevo wrote on November 27, 2007 3:58 PM:Jena 6, what an overhyped non-story. I don't have respect for people who march in support of criminals. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have made themselves irrelevant by constantly seeking out high-profile and dubious stories to exploit for self-promotion.
How come Jesse and Al weren't marching when that poor black woman was kidnapped, raped, and tortured by those 5 white people?
Oh, and lets not forget the whole Duke fiasco...
anon wrote on November 27, 2007 4:34 PM:"he wasn't really taking a shot at Obama as much as he was decrying the fact that in America, in order to be taken seriously by the media and by big doners, you have to basically ignore the issues of race and poverty. You have to pretend that America is populated exclusively by white, middle class soccer moms and nascar dads who basically don't want to hear about race or poverty, and who will turn against you if you say anything about it."
I agree he wasn't taking a shot at anyone. He was just pointing out the truth of the matter. But where I take issue with the above is "You have to pretend that..." NO. YOU DON'T. Sadly though, our Democratic candidates (with one exception this year) routinely do pretend that this is an issue no one cares about, etc...
If all Democrats acted like Democrats and talked about doing something about poverty (a condition that impacts the vast majority of Americans during their lifetimes whether black or white) as a central problem for our nation the media would have no choice. Instead, they cower in the corner like the pantywaists they are and stand up for someone else's principles instead of their own as middle of the roaders a.k.a. Republican Lite.
Mike, you're opinion is uninformed when you say:
"I disagree that poverty is a central issue for African-Americans. Polls show that African-Americans are concerned about most of the same issues that white Americans are concerned about: health care, economy/jobs, and Iraq. Poverty always places way down on the list (2-3%) in most polls."
Over 90% of African Americans experience years of poverty during their lives. This is a much more widespread, immediate problem for African Americans and much more acute than for all other groups in our society. Sadly, they are the canaries in the coal mine of our economy and so experience all of the negative effects first and the positive effects last. Poverty is always an issue for black Americans. Always. What do you think the economy/jobs and healthcare are about? Richness? No. They are top concerns because people don't want to be in poverty. The poor don't have jobs. The poor don't have decent, consistent, comprehensive healthcare. Poverty as an abstract concept doesn't necessarily leap to people's minds per se, but that is the fundamental issue.
donna L. wrote on November 27, 2007 8:30 PM:Link is to a very informative post on the subject.
I would say 'good on John Edwards' save for the source of the info. While Edwards has been the most consistantly vocal on the plights of blacks, he is not the only one. Kuncinich and Obama and on rare occasion Biden has spoken on these topics. Dodd has spoken on the poor and literacy but has not tied it specifically to racial factors that I can remember.
Most of the folk here know that I am a rather ardent Edwards supporter. If jackson's statement were sooth, I'd echo it. Unfortunately, Jackson all too often speaks without pausing to reflect on the truth or the facts. I can not speak ill of what is in Jackson's heart or his head but his mouth . . . Sigh. I just wish he'd stay off my side some times.
Saybah wrote on November 27, 2007 10:31 PM:With friends like Jesse who need enemies.
He endorses Obama, and then says he acts white. What gives.
Me thinks he still wants to be in the limelight. His time has come and gone. He should make way for the new breed of leaders -- his own son included.
Anonymous wrote on November 28, 2007 1:43 AM:To be fair, Jesse has been pretty magnanimus about shunning the massive "draft Jesse '08" movement that's sweeping the country.
greaughj w grere wrote on January 23, 2008 3:37 PM:rejkwgui5uh4tktjrwitohjthwijiotrjihjwriojmfgijiojfuckfuckfuckfuck
