US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
Al Sharpton for President (english)
09 Jul 2003
Modified: 10 Jul 2003
Why you should vote for Al Sharpton.
There have been a lot of conversations on the Independent Media Center and on left-oriented websites and list-serves regarding who of the nine Democratic candidates should be supported.

My attitude regarding this has been that it is healthy to work with any of the nine candidates since they are all much better than George Bush.

Originally I was with the school of thought that maybe it would be best to support the candidate with the most realistic chance of beating Bush. That would have meant supporting Clark, Gephardt or any of the rest of the several Yellow Dog Democrats in the field, but I could only stomach that bullshit for so long. If you do not vote your conscious than you might as well stay at home. After all, at the end of the day, how much better is some asshole like Joe Lieberman than George Bush?

Looking at the field of candidates there where only three candidates who speak to the issues that I am concerned with and that I feel that most Progressives are concerned with. Those candidates are Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich and the Rev. Al Sharpton.

So, I decided to take a good look at all three candidates, unlike most on the Left who while they have given a look to and support to Dean and Kucinich they have totally ignored Sharpton.

I soon realized that while Howard Dean opposed the war against the people of Iraq, he has been a strong and vocal supporter of even the most militant and controversial of Israeli policies. On economic issues he was essentially a fiscal-conservative as Governor of Vermont.

Not surprisingly Dean has gotten a large portion of his support from those Democratic voters who have little concern for economic issues and those that help the poor - urban yuppie liberals (the latte-left) who now, unfortunately, dominate the Democratic Party.

When it comes do Dean we get Bush-light economics, Wolfowitz foreign policy and very little commitment to tackle the current assault on civil liberties.

Kucinich is better on most of these issues and has proven to be a strong defender of the environment, a friend of labor and a fierce opponent to the Bush war machine. There is no doubt about it that he is an excellent candidate, however when he backtracked on the issue of abortion, in my opinion, in brought into question his character and could be a barometer of things to come as he could back down on other issues for the sake of political expediency in the future.

That left one candidate, the Rev. Al Sharpton. However, while Rev. Sharpton has been a grassroots activist for years and one can safely say the most Progressive candidate in the field, there has been an alarming absence of support for the Rev. Sharpton in Progressive circles.

Where are the endorsements for and the excitement for the most Progressive candidate in the field and the most progressive candidate in the history of the Democratic Party? The fact of the matter is that the excitement and endorsements are not there!

Why this one is must ask? Why are Progressives shying away from the Progressive candidate? Is it because it is inconceivable for some to see a black president? Is it because the issues that are important to African-Americans and Latinos are no longer important to White Liberals? Do Progressive Whites not care about the vicious attack on the civil liberties of Americans? Do they not care about the criminalization of Islam (oh! I forgot the latte-left hates all religion)? Do they not care about the millions of American parolees who have had their human right to vote removed, and Sharpton being the only candidate to fight for their rights? If not, then I see why many progressives will not support Sharpton.

Al Sharpton is the only candidate who has tirelessly worked with the Hip-Hop generation (Dean can have Generation X). He has worked to promote a positive message in the most important entertainment industry of our era.Al Sharpton has worked not only for economic justice, but he has worked for the reform of the criminal justice system and the repeal of unjust laws in the State of New York.

Rev. Sharpton has taken his message where no other candidate would dare go - the streets and ghettos of America! While Kucinich fought to prevent war in Iraq, just as Rev. Sharpton did, the Rev. Sharpton has fought to prevent the street wars in this country that have claimed the lives in the past decade than all of the Americans who died in the Second World War. Then again many who claim to be Progressives do not know, or care to know, the families of the thousands of youth and children who are gunned down every year.

Call me crazy, but call me crazy for Sharpton, and maybe you need to examine yourself and do some soul-searching for not supporting the Rev. Al Sharpton.
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

Comments

Get real (english)
10 Jul 2003
Do we really want a religious leader as president? What ever happend to seperation of church and state? Can we trust any clergy man (or woman) to not interget their religion into their government policies?

Sharpton has no management experiance. For that reason alone most thinking Americans will not vote for him. Let him get some real management experiance and then we will consider voting for him.
What Are You Talking About? (english)
10 Jul 2003
What are you talking about? I see no seperation of Church and State issue. The seperation clause does not mean that we should discriminate against the religous, and he will not be elected as a religous official but as a public official. Your comment is way out of line.