“We didn’t get the mule. So we decided we’d ride this donkey as far as it would take us.”

Posted by on . 13 comments.

abc_sharpton_040728_nh.jpg

Al Sharpton has taken a lot of heat around here, but that stops now. We may not agree with all of his ideas or methods, but all is forgiven after he rocked the Fleet Center into rubble with an incendiary call to arms. Read the transcript here.

“Mr. President, the reason we are fighting so hard, the reason we took Florida so seriously, is our right to vote wasn’t gained because of our age, our vote was soaked in the blood of martyrs, soaked in the blood of good men, soaked in the blood of four little girls in Birmingham. This vote is sacred to us.

“This vote can’t be bargained away. This vote can’t be given away.”

“In all due respect, Mr. President, read my lips: Our vote is not for sale.”

At the end of Sharpton’s speech, I was left in awe, wondering if the Fleet Center would burn to the ground. I’m sure that no one wanted to give Sharpton a speaking slot, but in the final analysis, if he can motivate the African American vote, it could prove to be the most important speech of the week.

More on all the speeches in a few days.

Comments

  1. sam says:
    July 29, 2004 at 9:57 am

    i seriously don’t understand why everyone’s got their panties in a bunch of the Sharpton speech. republicans, yes; but democrats … wtf? this man didn’t just energize african-americans with that speech. it was a hell of a performance. i understand the playing it safe theme of this convention but it’s sad to see so many democrats not defending Sharpton on this and just falling over like sheep. are they still scared of republicans? i thought the Dean transplant had done a fairly good job but i see that some are still way too eager to let go of it at the first sign of pride in their party. sheesh.

  2. matt says:
    July 29, 2004 at 10:04 am

    I’ve seen much more praise than criticism from Dems about Sharpton’s speech. I’d be curious to see what anyone was bitching about.

  3. evan says:
    July 29, 2004 at 10:56 am

    Contrast the CNN transcript (what Sharpton said) with the his “official” remarks on the DNC 2004 site.

    Looks like Sharpton had a speech prepared for him (by a Kerry speechwriter), and decided he wanted to make it better. Good for him.

  4. Erick says:
    July 29, 2004 at 10:57 am

    The man can orate! Listened to the speech on NPR on my way home last night, and I was floored. Made me yearn for a political system that didn’t play everything so down the middle, so as to not offend or inspire anyone. Reverend Al was inspiring…Let’s get more passionate people involved in the “Promise of America!”

  5. matt says:
    July 29, 2004 at 11:06 am

    He definitely ad-libbed, you could see it in his eyes. Plus he went 10 min or so over his time, but if Kerry’s people are pissed (I doubt they are) they shouldn’t be.

  6. kate says:
    July 29, 2004 at 1:35 pm

    i agree. sharpton’s speech was amazing! you can view the complete speech on c-span.org (and contrast it to the written statement). awesome.

  7. eric the online hip hop radio dj says:
    July 30, 2004 at 11:42 am

    I’m sorry to inform everyone: that was just Sharpton-lite. The transcript isn’t nearly as compelling as his delivery. Sharpton can go a lot deeper than that.

    I also think it is a sell-out to support Kerry. I’m sorry, but Kerry is a chump. Only months ago Sharpton was sticking hot pokers up Kerry’s ass, and now he is endorsing him. That is pitiful. Of course, when you are just the token, non-office-holding, HNIC… what else would you expect?

    Thankfully Obama is here to whip the Donkey’s ass. That man is gonna have to start his own party. He’s a pro-gay, black intellect who gets white people whipped into a frenzy. He’s like a cross between Malcolm X and Richard Simmons. God bless him.

  8. matt says:
    July 30, 2004 at 11:56 am

    Eric:

    Of course Sharpton in person and on TV are better than reading a transcript. As soon as the individual links to the video are available, we will post the ones worth watching.

    As far as selling out, I disagree 100%. Sharpton realizes that he must align himself and his causes with the candidate that will do him the most good. 1115.org stands firmly behind John Kerry, but should he be elected, we will be all over him to do the right things. As will people like Dean and Sharpton.

    It is more important to get the right man elected and hound him afterwards than to stand on perfection and make people beg for support. It’s called the real world.

    Obama gave a good speech, but he has a long long way to go. I’ll reserve judgment on him until he has a chance to make an impact. Don’t get too excited, he’s not even in the Senate yet.

  9. eric says:
    August 5, 2004 at 11:31 am

    Kerry is going to get in office and not remove troops from Iraq. He will continue to support Israel. He will not dismantle the Patriot Act. He will not protect the environment. He will not be much of an improvement over Bill Clinton.

    Better than Bush? C’mon… Two steps backward, and one step forward… is not progress.

    Voting “practically” is delusional concept. You yourself admit to being uncertain of the outcome of Kerry’s election (yes, he will win). Your notion of voting practically also suggests that you are willing to compromise what you know — in your heart — is the right way to do things. Our system is designed so that even when a wacko gets in office, we have enough checks and balances and media outlets to keep things relatively stable. George Jr. being a good example of that.

    I reject all candidates who support aggressive military action (Afghanistan, Iraq, Colombia, Haiti, etc.). Our strongest policy is a preventitive policy, where we don’t wait until the crisis and then use military options as a last resort or to exploit the situation. Financial, technical, and medical assistance have always been the most effective means of stabilizing countries and enabling them to prosper, including our own.

  10. matt says:
    August 5, 2004 at 12:30 pm

    “Kerry is going to get in office and not remove troops from Iraq. He will continue to support Israel. He will not dismantle the Patriot Act. He will not protect the environment. He will not be much of an improvement over Bill Clinton.”

    Any candidate who promises to bring troops home from Iraq is simply not credible. Even Howard Dean isn’t for immediate withdrawal as it would only increase instability and deaths of innocent civilians.

    Support of Israel troubles me, but I’m not voting on that issue because there is enough blame to go around over there,

    Kerry has pledged to roll back the more invasive provisions of the Patriot Act, but keep the ones that encourage information sharing within the government.

    Environment? Please. Sound like some education is in order…

    You’ll have a hard time around here arguing that being not “much of an improvement over Bill Clinton” is a bad thing.

    Give me peace and prosperity and let me concentrate on living.

    Either George W Bush or John Kerry will be the next president of the united states. Forgive me if I see a huge difference between their policies. What’s next, the pigs with different make-up line?

    A question? How is it that you think you know what’s “in my heart?” Do you think that because I want to be rid of the current President that I am a flaming leftist? Well, I’m not. But Robert Rubin isn’t running for President, and even if he was, I’m not sure that he would be effective despite the fact that I think he’s right on all the issues. So I fully 100% support John Kerry.

    I don’t know what to tell you about this:

    “Our system is designed so that even when a wacko gets in office, we have enough checks and balances and media outlets to keep things relatively stable. George Jr. being a good example of that.”

    If you truly believe what you said here, you are simply as wrong as you could be. This talking point was used in 2000, and has been proven objectively false. There is complete Republican control of Congress, and a Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court. The media teeters between being in a coma and shilling for the administration. Relatively stable? Define your terms then.

    “I reject all candidates who support aggressive military action (Afghanistan, Iraq, Colombia, Haiti, etc.). ”

    So you are a pacifist? That doesn’t really work anymore. But I respect the position.

    “Our strongest policy is a preventitive policy, where we don’t wait until the crisis and then use military options as a last resort or to exploit the situation. Financial, technical, and medical assistance have always been the most effective means of stabilizing countries and enabling them to prosper, including our own.”

    I agree to a certain extent, but I prefer free trade as the solution rather than assistance. But based on your other positions, I very seriously doubt that you are a free-trader.

  11. eric is underground hip hop says:
    August 5, 2004 at 6:46 pm

    For the record, my political views fall somewhere between anarchism and communism. I am a pacifist by default: I don’t need to use violence to survive. The only way to end violence is to end violence. Why not start with the one thing you have control over: your own personal actions.

    Free trade as a “solution”?? Free trade, in and of itself, is not necessarily good or bad. There are many examples where free trade has increased and diminished prosperity and well-being. Within the borders of the U.S. we have free trade between states, yet 20% of people have no health care. As with any effective international policy, we need to look at trade on an industry-by-industry basis. With regard to the environment, free trade has proven detrimental. The other flaw of free trade is that only democratic societies witness the trickle-down effects considered the great virtue of free trade.

    Honestly, I could really care less if the U.S. falls apart because this country hasn’t earned its freedom and prosperity. I blame both sides of the political fence. I blame the Republicans for being stupid and I blame the Democrats for believing themselves progressive. You can believe whatever you want, but if it doesn’t actually happen — meaning if the reforms never take place or merely teeter back and forth — you haven’t accomplished a damn thing. A few extra years of prosperity and freedom doesn’t mean shit. Most of the world lives in miserable poverty and oppression. Only 1% enjoy the freedom and prosperity for which you fight. Another 0.001% of freedom and prosperity… big deal.

    With regard to my knowing what is “in your heart”… I must admit that I do not actually know what is in your heart. I merely used some good old semantic deuctive reasoning. If you claim to be voting practically — as you do, correct? — then you are foregoing the option of voting idealistically. In other words, your highest ideals are not reflected by your voting.

    If you want peace and prosperity (as you claim) then I suggest you support radical views that go against prevailing conventional wisdom. I can GUARANTEE that few leading indicators of peace and prosperity will change as long as Republicans and Democrats keep up the charade. They are both defenders of the status quo. I am willing to take the chance of living like the rest of the world in order to see if we can make it to the next level. Clearly, you are not.

    Thanks for the good conversation.

  12. matt says:
    August 5, 2004 at 9:35 pm

    “For the record, my political views fall somewhere between anarchism and communism.”

    I’m glad you cleared that up. I can’t really support much from either one of those philosophies.

    “The only way to end violence is to end violence. Why not start with the one thing you have control over: your own personal actions.”

    By this you mean not supporting politicians who support violence? I don’t practice violence in my life, but the state has to hold the possibility of violence in reserve otherwise it may as well not be a state. This world isn’t utopian.

    Free trade coupled with education is what I would advocate due to the effect it would have on developing areas. Health care is only one factor. Not sure If you heard that Kerry has a plan for expanding health care…

    “Honestly, I could really care less if the U.S. falls apart because this country hasn’t earned its freedom and prosperity.”

    This is asinine. I care about whether this country lives or dies because i believe in the idea that i think it stands for.

    “I blame both sides of the political fence. I blame the Republicans for being stupid and I blame the Democrats for believing themselves progressive.”

    I don’t especially disagree, but the difference is that I think the Dems have been less bad, and that is proven but the legislation that have passed from the New Deal on.

    “You can believe whatever you want, but if it doesn’t actually happen — meaning if the reforms never take place or merely teeter back and forth — you haven’t accomplished a damn thing.”

    I don’t think that equating beliefs with accomplishments is the way to look at it. Should I only support ideas that are realistic? Sounds like you are making the opposite argument of what most progressives make: “Compromise is bad”

    “If you claim to be voting practically — as you do, correct? — then you are foregoing the option of voting idealistically. In other words, your highest ideals are not reflected by your voting.”

    As I said previously, no one running in this election mirrors my exact thoughts on every issue. I take voting extremely seriously, and I am proud of that fact. I look at the candidates available and decide who shares more of my beliefs. In the primaries, it was Wes Clark. In the general election, it is John Kerry. I don’t consider myself to be a progressive or a Green, I am very much a neo-liberal, and make absolutely no apologies for those beliefs.

    As for your last paragraph, it really comes down to your definition of peace and prosperity. If I wanted to live like the rest of the world, I’d move there. I’m not willing to sacrifice the education I have nor the hard work I have done to provide myself the standard of living that I have even if it isn’t as good as what it was a few years ago.

    But all of this is being wasted in an old thread.

    On many occasions, I have offered front page space to people who disagree with anything we have to say. I didn’t mean anarchists, but what the hell.

  13. eric is underground hip hop says:
    August 6, 2004 at 2:20 am

    “But all of this is being wasted in an old thread.”

    “Talent develops in quiet places, character in the full current of human life.”

    Believe it or not, I’m having fun here. I would be happy to take you up on your offer. Thanks. I am actually not an anarchist (no such thing really exists). Nor am I a communist (ditto for communism). I am a “situationalist”, which means I simply make good decisions based on the current situation. In other words, I’m not an “anything”.

    I think it is good to keep our blades sharp here. Think of me as a grindstone. I’m actually much less of a crackpot than I might appear. I must admit I’m a little behind on the news these days. Therefore I bullshit a bit much. But that doesn’t mean I won’t pull your card on the “free trade and education” platform.

    One of the problems with free trade is that countries often find themselves at the mercy of global commodities prices. Staple foods and locally-produced necessities get replaced by cash crops (sugar, cocoa, coffee, oil, etc). Many people view this as a necessary step to get to the next level (light industry and development of entrepreneurial class), but just as often this shift to an export economy leaves the country more vulnerable and unstable than it was before. Protectionism is one of the few measures available to stabilize against this tendency (and it has been a key element of our own country’s ability to remain economical stable over the last fifty years).

    Education is almost always a good thing — how could I argue against education? But in an agricultural society it is not practical for most children to go to school after the first few grades because the value of their labor is so high in those economies. The notion of “investing in a child’s education” is usually impractical, because they are usually vital to the harvesting of food, collection fuel, transporting goods, and/or working in a factory or field. And this is why health care is so important in developing countries.

    Health care enables families to retain their human capital. Without health care, families become unstable, and mothers — who are usually the bedrock of the family — must shoulder the burden of having more children, while increasing the workload to make up for the loss of labor. And if the mother becomes ill or injured, the entire family will be dragged down with her. Thus, women’s health care is widely regarded in development circles as the major key to improving the quality of life in developing countries.

    But as far as the U.S., yeah I think education is certainly our major shortcoming. I propose nationalizing the funding of education, while retaining local control of management (in order to appease all the right wing nuts).

    Let me know if you are serious about the offer.