Message to Dean: Green Isn't the Only Color That Counts

"Green Isn't the Only Color That Counts"
Washington Post, October 1, 2003

Dean repeated his controversial contention that he is the only one of the Democratic candidates who talks about race to white audiences. Dean's opponents took exception to that claim, so Dean put a caveat in it that he thinks will make it more difficult to dispute.

"I'm the only politician who talks to white people about race the way it should be talked about," he said. "The president of the United States needs to talk about race, and I have. For instance, I talk about affirmative action. I explain to white audiences that the term 'quotas' is a racially divisive term" designed to appeal to white fears and prejudices. He continued: "If you talk to most white people, they don't believe racism is still an issue. It is. We still have a lot of ethnocentric bias against people who don't look like them."

This sort of talk is a good example of what his opponents don't like about him. "For him to say he's the only candidate to talk to white audiences about racial issues is presumptuous and arrogant," said Ron Lester, a black pollster who is advising the presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass). "Kerry has not only been doing that, but he's got a record -- he doesn't need to stand up and beat the drums about what he's done. All you have to do is look at his record. And Edwards is someone who has addressed race in many venues where there weren't a lot of black people…I was shocked when he said that. It's almost like he got a little carried away with himself."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24753-2003Sep30.html

Why does Dean persist on telling this same falsehood? He is NOT the only white candidate talking about race to white audiences, regardless how he keeps tweaking his definition of what talking about race really means.

For example, John Edwards has been speaking out about race for years. And, he's done more than just talk about it - he's been DOING something about it. For example, he's been fighting anti-civil rights judges in the Senate and almost single-handedly took down Charles Pickering in a brilliant cross-examination in the Senate Judiciary Committee. And in addition to talking about affirmative action, he (along with Kerry and Lieberman) actually submitted a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in the University of Michigan case urging that the Court uphold affirmative action.

If Dean wants to talk about what and to whom he's talking about on race, fine. He should talk about it all he wants and let voters decide whether it means anything. But his continued insistence that HE has somehow invented the race discussion in modern America or that he is on the cutting edge of race relations is not only wrong, but it makes him look arrogant and ridiculous. And it's not likely to earn him anything but ridicule and disdain from minority voters.

I like Howard Dean, but he's really making a fool of himself on this one. Someone needs to tell him to stop, for his own good.

and with passion.

The other Dems talk about race like they're giving a dissertation :boring: .

"blunt" talk about race?

discrimminated against unconsciously. It was a good example, because even though his office was staffed by a pro-woman, women are the minority in most work places, especially ones run by men. This example was a jab at white men who hire men like them. That was the intent of this story.

men are discriminated against isn't exactly tough talk about race.

But if that's what he's saying Democrats like Clinton, Carter, LBJ and JFK haven't done, he's probably right. Those guys actually talked about race.

Dean's comments, far from being proof of his sensitivity on the race issue, is really an indication of just how out of touch he is.

Like the white guy who is thinks that constantly telling everyone that he has black friends shows how cool and open-minded he is, perhaps Dean really believes he's got it going on, that he's the MAN when it comes to race. Only someone who doesn't have a clue about what's being said and done on race and fails to understand the issue is considerably more complex than just saying that affirmative action isn't quotas would continually demonstrate such arrogance.

explains things any better than poltics can explain things.

Dean's support is mostly among white people. I think this anti-male discrimination metaphor for race discrimination is calculated to tap into the worst instincts of white people. He's trying to get people a little mad about the fact that men are discriminated against, and he's hoping that the pique than converts into support for him. That's easy.

It's hard to actually convince people that, if you're white, you aren't better off if you're holding your black neighbor back. It's hard to argue that we're all better off if the lowest among us is better off. That's the harder discussion about race to make.

I'm sure I'm missing something bigger, but I think that's the core of it...

My friend from work joined me at the House Party Monday night and he is African American. He supports Dean and saw nothing wrong with Dean's comments about Affirmative Action. It was on the mark.

...I heard?

I'm going to stick with my opinion.

as your candidate. Trying to characterize the others' approach to race as less than his only diminishes Dean. If Dean thinks that his approach to race is so compelling, he should just tell people about it. But trying to denigrate every other white politician's approach makes Dean appear both ignorant and arrogant. It's one of the reasons he hasn't gotten much traction in the black community.

Trust me, Howard Dean's discussions about race are not as big of a deal as he seems to think they are. He's not on the cutting edge, he's not doing something that numerous other politicians aren't doing. He has not cornered the market on this issue. Perhaps Dean and other white people who haven't dealt much with the race issue or haven't spent much time around minorities are impressed, but black folks aren't.

He's in danger of becoming a joke in the minority community if he keeps this up.

Just a warning. It's apparently falling on deaf ears.

Have you witnessed every single comment made or discussion engaged in by every other white politician on the topic of race? If not, you're in no position to criticize how they discuss this topic.

As I said, you should just stick with talking about how YOUR candidate deals with the issue and let the voters make up their own minds about how he compares with other candidates.

Black people aren't stupid. They aren't children who need to be told how to deal with this issue. They don't need Howard Dean to act as their emissary to white people. They are considerably more savvy than most people about the race issue and don't need to be educated by Howard Dean and his supporters about what is and isn't important and who and who isn't properly addressing their concerns. They can figure it out all by themselves, without Howard Dean's help!

Dean's constant lectures about his perceived "superiority" on this issue smacks of paternalism - as if he believes he's the Great White Savior for black folks. It's insulting. And, if he doesn't stop it soon, it's going to be an achilles heel.

convention this year. Kerry & Edwards were going to bypass it until they got publicly scolded. Lieberman had a fundraiser and an interview with conservative talk show host Bill O'Reilly scheduled for that day. Lieberman went to the convention a few days later to apologize, but the damage had already been done. Graham and Gephardt never bothered to go.

If these guys were so race-friendly, whey didn't they willingly go to the Prez convention NAACP convention? Bypassing it was a sign of disrespect to the NAACP and African Americans.

These guys can talk all they want about race relations, but when it comes time to meet with the black faction of the Democratic base, they choose to spurn it. Actions speak as loudly as words.

Howard Dean claims it's no big deal to talk to black audiences about race, so why should he get any credit for going to the NAACP?

I repeat - give it up. You're just making your candidate look desperate and ridiculous.

And that is what Dean has been doing to the factions that make up the Dem base and are taken for granted by the Dem Party hierarchy.

What really pisses off Dems like me, is being taken for granted by the Dem Party hierarchy. Dean heard that anger and frustration when he was initially campaigning. He heard the anger from the Dem base against the Party Establishment and developed a plan to channel that anger into a movement for change. That's why Dean is leading in fundraising and all those other candidates, who flash their voting credentials, are trailing behind Dean.

Regime change is needed in the Dem Party hierarchy as much as it is needed in Washington, and I'm a member of my local Dem Town Committee and I am disgusted with our Party's leadership.

And ACTION over decades not months.

Shame on the spin.

Kucinich has shown courage in the past as well, like when he stood up against the corporate power companies. I admit hes not a public figure like some out there but has he been fighting for important issues in his years as a politican? you better believe it. Sorry for the branch on to DK. Kerry does have an accomplished past thats all I am making point of.

or maybe it's just about getting the black vote.

In addition to that, non-white voters have been so successfully marginalized, both economically and politically, that there is really no need for any candidate to bother about "minorities" or low wage earners, a group disproportionately represented by minorities.

There is nothing that any moneyed candidate can offer this demographic and keep his money, and none are attempting it.

Sorry to say it this way, but the basic truth is that the rich white folks should just go ahead and have their "election" however it pleases them to do so, because unfortunately, it is not reasonable to suppose that the issues that concern low income and minority voters have a political solution anyway.

Societies make choices, and choices have consequences.
Presumably, when the choice was made to work toward the goal of such a large divide between rich and poor, to allow the market value of a day's work to fall below the market value of a day's survival, it was made with full knowledge and recognition of the eventual consequences.

If that is not the case, that is indeed a tragedy, but it is too late to do anything about it now, in terms of politics and elections, that is...

Stop the presses.

That's how he talked about it in his conference call.

He hasn't exactly been a vanguard for race relations or even on the front lines. His boasts are empty, and his implications about the other candidates are plain LIES.

Can anyone specify anything that Howard Dean has actually done to advance the cause for civil rights for minorities? I'm not suggesting that he hasn't, but I'm not aware of anything he's done. If he has, please share it with us - I, for one, would find it very helpful.

they have no real defense of Dean's actual record as governor. They just cling to what he says NOW.

This sort of remark is completely unfounded. To assume that he's the only one doing anything is ludicrous.

to attend the Prez forum at the NAACP convention?

Dean knew that one of his weaknesses was the perception that he was weak on race relations and he developed a plan to deal with it. Courting one of the largest factions of the Dem base was the reason that he made the effort to attend the Prez forum at the NAACP convention, and by attending, he showed respect towards the African American community.

Unlike Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, Graham, and Gephardt, Dean showed respect towards the progressive factions of the Dem base -- feminist groups, African Americans, and Hispanics -- by attending their forums. Dean made the effort to reach out to them, Kerry et all were too busy fundraising to strengthen relationships with factions of the Dem base.

In fact Kweisi has said he'd LOVE to see Kerry as the nominee. The conflict was scheduling. Kerry always intended on being there. The story was overblown.

Dean is just doing this NOW and never pursued any activities or legislation that improved the lives of those challenged daily by racism.

Why the hell are you confusing Dean as a campaigner with Dean's actual record of supporting hardline judicial stances that effected blacks in negative and unfairly disproportionate ways?

Kerry and others have been leading and legislating for decades on this issue. For Dean to lie about their records is just part of his con.

Wellstone pointed out the environmental racism Dean was participating in with Bush on Sierra Blanca. Dean didn't try to correct that on his own. He was willing to let it go down. It was stopped IN SPITE OF Dean.

Dean didn't have a large black population in Vermont, but he believes in equal rights for all, whether they be gays or blacks. To Dean the issue to defend is equal rights for all.

And remember Gov. Dean was representing the people of Vermont, not all of America. His first duty was to Vermont.

As far as Kerry and the NAACP, he or his staff should have done a better job handling the scheduling conflict. It shows lack of organization on Kerry's part.

.

By the way, last night I found out how he became governnor. It seems to me that when a doctor benefits so greatly from someone dying of some kind of sudden medical problem, people should ask some questions.

suggesting that Dean may have murdered Governor Snelling? That's quite amusing. Dean was is his office examining a patient when Snelling, who was cleaning his swimming pool, had a heart attack. Oh, that's right, Dean slipped him a slow acting heart attack inducing agent days earlier. HA HA HA.

If Clinton had been a doctor and in Dean's place, there would have been questions.

By Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

Race is a difficult subject in America. Politicians often tell black audiences that they believe in civil rights and affirmative action. Some talk about their own experiences in the Civil Rights movement. Some are now attacking the use of the word quotas in front of white audiences. Doing all of this is important.

But it is not enough.

No white American can understand what it means to be black in America. Things have improved significantly for African Americans in this country since 1964. However, it is important to recognize that the Civil Rights Movement was largely a victory over legal segregation. Discrimination still exists, and we must continue efforts to eliminate it.

Polls show that the majority of white Americans believe that race is no longer a big factor in American life, and that equality of opportunity has mostly been successfully incorporated into American political and social culture. Many white Americans assume that whatever segregation remains in the public school systems and universities around the country is either self-imposed or the product of neighborhood schools.

Bill Clinton is the only President or white Presidential candidate I have ever heard talk candidly about issues of race in America. Black Americans still believe, with some justification, that white America does not understand the historical scars left by slavery and Jim Crow, scars which cannot be erased in a generation or two. Black Americans often mistake white indifference or lack of understanding for racism, which is the case in only a small number of instances.

But many white Americans don't understand that indifference and lack of understanding does lead to institutional racism, where, despite the best intentions of the individuals who run the institution, day-to-day hiring practices only reinforce African American fears and suspicions of bias. Just last week, a Wall Street Journal article reported that white job applicants with criminal records were more likely to be called back for job interviews than African American applicants with clean records.

Affirmative action is still needed in order to overcome the unconscious biases that all Americans of every ethnic group have toward hiring people like themselves. And the discussion of that unconscious bias is essential if we are ever going to bridge the gaps between white America and not only African Americans, but the Latino community, Native-Americans, Asian Americans, and women of all ethnic backgrounds.

Talking about race means more than merely mentioning civil rights or condemning the President's use of the word quota. Talking about race means confronting ourselves with the vastly different perceptions that we have about each other, and trying to walk a mile in one another’s shoes.

Race is not simply a matter of civil rights; it can influence the right to thrive and prosper in American society. A discussion of race is incomplete without addressing the impact of race or ethnicity on the ability to access affordable health care, quality education and the capital to build businesses and create wealth.

It is particularly important for white candidates to raise these issues in front of white audiences. This kind of message can be too easily dismissed or pigeonholed coming from a member of a minority community. If America is going to prosper as the most diverse nation on the face of the earth, we are all going to have to take responsibility for the stereotypes we have of each other, and debunk them.

Let us each commit to do our part.

http://www.michiganfordean.com/news/0914_oped.htm

I am not flaming or anything but if you read a man named Robert Kennedy you see race brought up a lot. Take his speech in Indianapolis when MLK was killed. I am NOT flaming Dean or anyone I am just saying plenty of white democratic presidential candiates have talked about it whether directly or inferring to it.

'The same corporate media that pretend Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich and Carol Moseley-Braun do not exist have suddenly discovered blinding whiteness in the Dean camp. Although there is no doubt that Dean’s digital-based campaign reflects the racial and class character of the digital divide, the candidate was unfairly mocked for his remarks at the Baltimore presidential hopefuls debate, September 9. “I'm the only white politician that ever talks about race in front of white audiences," Dean declared. Historically, Dean is right on the mark; “mainstream” white candidates seldom make anti-racism pitches to mostly white audiences.

Dean distinguished himself, race-wise, early on and magnificently at the Democrats’ winter meeting, February 21, in Washington: "White folks in the South who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag decals in the back ought to be voting with us and not them, because their kids don't have health insurance, either, and their kids need better schools, too."

Nobody but Dean on the “top tier” of candidates talks like that in mostly white company. Now, that’s “good white folks” – for what it’s worth.'

http://www.blackcommentator.com/57/57_cover_clark.html

I am glad Dean speaks out on race but he aint all alone in this race. My candiate Kucinich opposes those two things I mentioned that are indeed racist not just race racist but economic racism. Of course poor rural southerners should be voting for us. I didnt say he was bad on race but I did say there have been a number of candiates who speak out on it.

http://www.cs.umb.edu/jfklibrary/j093062.htm

oops, that's not the one I'm looking for. I'll keep looking.

I think this is the really good one:

http://www.jfklibrary.org/j061163.htm

Senator Bill Bradley
July 10, 1991

Mr. President , this is an open letter to President Bush. I hope he will hear it and I hope the American people will listen, too. I hope this letter will put the issue of race relations in a broader context than simply the Supreme Court nomination of Clarence Thomas. I offer this letter recognizing that when a black or white American speaks about race one necessarily speaks for someone else of a different race . That is awkward and subject to misinterpretation. But silence is worse.

Dear Mr. President : In 1988 you used the Willie Horton ad to divide white and black voters and appeal to fear. Now, based on your remarks about the 1991 Civil Rights Bill, you have begun to do the same thing again. Mr. President , we implore you--don't go down this path again. It's not good for the country. We can do better.

Racial tension is too dangerous to exploit and too important to ignore. America yearns for straight talk about race , but instead we get code words and a grasping after an early advantage in the 1992 election. Continued progress in race relations requires moral leadership and a clear sighted understanding of our national self-interest. And that must start with our President .

There is a place and a time for politics. The Willie Horton ad in your 1988 campaign will be played and analyzed by political pundits for years to come .

There is a place and time for leadership. The place for leadership is here--for our people, uncertain and divided once again on the issue of race . And the time for leadership is now.

So, Mr. President , tell us how you have worked through the issue of race in your own life. I don't mean speechwriter abstractions about equality or liberty but your own life experiences. When did you realize there was a difference between the lives of black people and the lives of white people in America? Where did you ever experience or see discrimination? How did you feel? What did you do? What images remain in your memory? Tell us more about how you grapped with the moral imperatives embodied in race relations and how you clarified the moral ambiguities that necessarily are a part of the attitude of every American who has given it any thought--any thought at all.

Do you believe silence will muffle the gunshots of rising racial violence in our cities? Do you believe that brotherhood will be destroyed by candor about the obstacles to its realization? Do you believe ignoring the division between the races will heal it? If you truly want it healed, why don't you spend some of the political capital represented by your 70 percent approval ratings and try to move our glacial collective humanity one inch forward.


Mr. President , you say you're against discrimination. Why not make a morally unambliguous statement and then back it up with action? At West Point you said you `will strike at discrimination wherever it exists.’How will you do that and when? Why not try to change the racist attitudes of some Americans--even if they voted for you--so that all Americans can realize our ideals?

Mr. President , if these concerns are wrong, please dispel them. Please explain the following bases for our doubt.

DOUBT ONE--YOUR RECORD

Back in 1964 you ran for the U.S. Senate and you opposed the Civil Rights Act of that year. Why?

I remember that summer. I was a student intern in Washington, D.C., between my junior and senior years in college and I was in this Senate chamber that hot summer night when the bill passed. I remember that roll call. I remember thinking, `America is a better place because of this bill. All Americans--white or black--are better off.’I remember the presidential election that summer too, when Senator Goldwater made the Civil Rights Act an issue in his campaign. I came to Washington that summer as a Republican. I left as a Democrat.

Why did you oppose that bill? Why did you say that the 1964 Civil Rights Act `violates the constitutional rights of all people?’Remember how America functioned in many parts of the country before it passed? Separate restrooms and drinking fountains for black and white, blacks turned away from hotels, restaurants, movies. Did you believe that black Americans should eat at the kitchen steps of restaurants, not in the dining room? Whose constitutional rights were being violated there?

Were you just opposing the Civil Rights Bill for political purposes? Were you just using race to get votes?

Did you ever change your mind and regret your opposition to the Civil Rights Act? If so, when? Did you ever express your regret publicly? What is your regret?

When you say today that you're against discrimination, I don't know what you mean because you have never repudiated or explained your past opposition to the most basic widening of opportunity for black Americans in the 20th century, the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

It sounds like you're trying to have it both ways--lip service to equality and political maneuvering against it.

What does you record mean? What have you stood for?


DOUBT TWO--ECONOMIC REALITY

Mr. President , over the last 11 years of Republican rule the poor and the middle class in America have not fared well. The average middle income family earned $31,000 in 1977 and $31,000 in 1990. No improvement. During the same time period, the richest 1% of American families went from earning $280,000 in 1977 to $549,000 in 1990. Now, how could that have happened? How could the majority of voters have supported governments whose primary achievement was to make the rich richer? The answer lies in the strategy and tactics of recent political campaigns.

Just as middle class America began to see their economic interests clearly and to come home to the Democratic party, Republicans interjected race into campaigns, to play on new fears and old prejudices, to drive a wedge through the middle class, to pry off a large enough portion to win.

Mr. President, most Americans recognize that in economic policy Republicans usually try to reward the rich, and Democrats usually do not. I accept that as part of the lore and debate and rhythm of American politics. What I cannot accept, because it eats at the core of our society, is inflaming racial tension to perpetuate power and then using that power to reward the rich and ignore the poor. It is a reasonable argument over means to say more for the wealthy is a price we pay to `lift all boats.’It is a cynical manipulation to send messages to white working people that they have more in common with the wealthy than with the black worker next to them on the line, taking the same physical risks and struggling to make ends meet with the same pay.

Mr. President, I detest anyone who uses that tactic--whether it is a Democrat like George Wallace or a Republican like David Duke. The irony is that most of the people who voted for George Wallace or David Duke or George Bush because of race haven't benefited economically from the last decade. Many of them are worse off. Many have lost jobs, health insurance, pension benefits. Many more can't buy a house or pay property taxes or hope to send their child to college. The people who have benefited come from the wealthiest class in America. So, Mr. President, put bluntly, why shouldn't we doubt your commitment to racial justice and fair play when we see who has benefited most from the power that has been acquired through sowing the seeds of racial division?

DOUBT THREE--YOUR INCONSISTENT WORDS

We Americans hold a special trust on the issue of race. We fought one of the bloodiest wars in history over it--brother against brother, state against state, American against American. Our communities and our schools and our hearts have been torn by the issue. We have come too far, Mr. President. We do not need to be torn further. Most Americans who have absorbed our history know the wisdom of Zora Neale Hurston's words that, `Race is an explosive on the tongues of men.’Race is most especially an explosive on the tongue of the President * * * or his men.


We have come too far. We need to be led not manipulated. We need leadership that will summon the best in us not the worst.

Yet you have tried to turn the Willie Horton code of 1988 into the quotas code of 1992. You have said that's not what you're doing but as you said at West Point, `You can't put a sign on a pig and say it's a horse.’

Why do you say one thing with your statement against discrimination and another with your opposition to American businesses working with civil rights groups to get a civil rights bill most Americans could be proud of. Are you sending mixed signals or giving a big wink to a pocket of the electorate?

We measure our leader by what he says and by what he does. If both what he says and what he does are destructive of racial harmony, we must conclude that he wants to destroy racial harmony. If what he says and what he does are different, then what he does is more important. If he says different things at different times that are mutually contradictory, then we conclude he's trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes.

Mr. President, you need to be clearer, so that people on all sides understand where you are, what you believe and how you propose to make your beliefs a reality. Until then, you must understand that an increasing number of Americans will assume your convictions about issues of race and discrimination are no deeper than a water spider's footprint.

DOUBT FOUR--YOUR LEADERSHIP

Racial politics has an unseemly history in America. For only about five decades of the last 220 years have our politicians actively tried to heal racial wounds. Slavery blighted our ideals for nearly a century. Then a burst of hope from 1865 to 1876. Then nearly another century of exploitation and inhumanity including harsh and discriminatory treatment of Hispanics and many other immigrant groups. Then from 1945 to 1980, another burst of hope. Much was accomplished in this last period. But, all of us deep in our hearts know there's more to do.

Demagogues--both white and black--seek to deepen divisions. Misconceptions grow. Fears accelerate. Outlandish egos thrive on the misery of others.


Both races have to learn to speak candidly with each other. By the year 2000, only 57% of people entering the work force will be native born whites. White-Americans have to understand that their children's standard of living is inextricably bound to the future of millions of non-white children who will pour into the workforce in the next decades. To guide them toward achievement will make America a richer, more successful society. To allow them to self-destruct because of penny-pinching or timidity about straight talk will make America a second rate power. And Black Americans have to believe that acquisition of skills will serve as an entry into society not because they have acquired a veneer of whiteness but because they are able. Blackness doesn't compromise ability nor does ability compromise blackness. Both blacks and whites have to create and celebrate the common ground that binds us together as Americans and human beings.

To do that we must reach out in trust to each other. By ignoring the poverty in our cities, white Americans deny reality as much as black Americans whose sense of group identity often denies the individuality that they themselves know is God's gift to every baby. There is much to say to each other about rage and patience, about opportunity and obligation, about fear and courage, about guilt and honor. The more Americans can see beyond someone's skin to his heart and mind, the easier it will be for us to reveal our true feelings and to admit our failures as well as celebrate our strengths. The more Americans are honest about the level of distrust they hold for each other, the easier it will be to get beyond those feelings and forge a new relationship without racial overtones. Both black and white Americans need to recognize that what's important is not whether the commanding officer is black or white but how good a leader he or she is. That's true in war and it's equally true in peace.

Above all, we need to establish a social order in which individuals of all races assume personal responsibility. In a contest that's fair a chance is all someone needs. In a contest that's fair the gripes and excuses of losers don't carry much weight.

So individual responsibility is essential. And so is facing reality clearly. Crime often causes poverty. Racism exists, and so do horrible living conditions in our cities. To accept any of this as natural or necessary or unchangeable is to insure that it will continue.

The most important voice in that national dialogue is yours, Mr. President. You can set us against each other or you can bring us together. You can reason with us and help us overcome deep-rooted stereotypes or you can speak in mutually contradictory sound bites and leave us at each other's throats. You can risk being pilloried by demagogues and losing a few points in the polls, or you can simply ignore the issue, using it only for political purposes. You can push the buttons which you think give you an election or you can challenge a nation's moral conscience.

The irony here is that as a Democrat, I am urging the Republican President t o do what will serve his own party's longterm political interests. Why do I do it? Because I believe that race-b aiting should be banished from politics. Because I believe communicating in code words and symbols to deliver an old shameful message should cease. There should be no more Willie Horton ads. Mr. President, will you promise not to use race a gain as you so shamelessly did in 1988? If you will not promise your country this, why not?


DOUBT FIVE--YOUR CONVICTIONS


Mr. President, as Vice President t o Ronald Reagan you were a loyal lieutenant. To my knowledge you never expressed public opposition to anything that happened in race r elations in the Reagan years. You acquiesced in giving control of the civil rights agenda to elements of the Republican party whose strategy was to attract those voters who wanted to turn the clock back on race r elations.

The Reagan Justice Department tried to give government tax subsidies to schools that practice racial discrimination as a matter of policy. And you went along. They were reluctant to push the Voting Rights Act renewal--and you went along. They vetoed the 1988 Civil Rights Restoration Act--and you went along. For eight years there was an assault on American civility and fair play and you went along. On what issue would you have spoken out? Was your role as Vice President m ore important than any conviction? Obviously, the issue of race w asn't one of them. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote from his jail cell in Birmingham, `We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of bad people but for the appalling silence of good people.’

Mr. President, you saw black America fall into a deeper and deeper decline during the Reagan years. From 1984 to 1988, the number of black children murdered in America increased by 50 percent. Today, 43 percent of black children are born in poverty. And since 1984 black life expectancy has declined--the first decline for any segment of America in our history. Yet in the face of these unprecedented developments, you said and did nothing. Why did you go along?

In 1989, when you took over you promised it would be different. But it hasn't been. The rhetoric has been softer at times, but the problem is the same. At Hampton College, a predominantly black school, you recently promised `adequate funding’for Head Start, but three out of four eligible children are still turned away. Do you believe what you say? What is more important than getting a generation of kids on the right education track? I'm all for the important work of the Thousand Points of Light Foundation but for it to really succeed a President a nd his government must be the beacon.

Maybe you have no idea what to do about kids killing kids in our cities and people sleeping on the streets. Maybe out of wedlock births are outside your experience and not of importance to you. Maybe you really have concluded that urban enterprise zones and the HOPE program are a sufficient urban poverty strategy. Maybe families to you don't include white and black families living in cities, struggling to make ends meet against the same high odds, which you refuse to reduce. Maybe you just don't understand. Maybe, maybe, maybe.


Who knows? We rarely hear your voice. At West Point, you exhorted America to be colorblind. But without doing something about inequity and poverty the call for colorblindness is denial and arrogance. Mr. President, you have to create a context in which a colorblind society might eventually evolve. Right now you are neither similar to the stern father administering bad news and discipline to his children, nor the wise father helping his children come t o terms w ith emotions they don't understand or prejudices they can't conquer. And you are certainly not the leader laying out the plan and investing the political capital to change conditions.

So, Mr. President, my concern is not just the 1991 Civil Rights Act or the fate of Clarence Thomas. Your Civil Rights Bill, the Democrats’Civil Rights Bill, the Danforth Civil Rights Bill all say pretty much the same thing to business: Pay attention to your hiring practices; make an effort to find minorities who can do the job because it is in the national interest for pluralism to truly work. There is no reason we can't find language that 60 Senators can support.

But you, or those working for you--don't appear to want a compromise. Not yet. Businessmen wanted a compromise and your White House pressured them to back off talks. Senator Danforth wants a compromise--but he hasn't gotten much encouragement. Some Senators, Republicans, want to be responsible but they say you're not dealing in good faith. Your operatives apparently don't want to lose a political issue--not yet.

Mr. President, as you and your men dawdle in race p olitics consider these facts: We will never win the global economic race i f we have to carry the burden of an increasingly larger unskilled population. We will never lead the world by the example of our living values if we can't eradicate the `reservation’mentality many whites hold about our cities. We will never understand the problems of our cities--the factories closed, the housing filled with rats, the hospitals losing doctors, the schools pock marked with bullet holes, the middle class moved away--until a white person can point out the epidemic of minority illegitimacy, drug addition and homicides without being charged a racist. We will never solve the problem of our cities until we intervene massively and directly to change the physical conditions of poverty and depravation. But you can still win elections by playing on the insecurities our people feel about their jobs, their homes, their children, and their future.

And so our greatest doubt about you is this: is winning elections more important to you than unifying the country to address the problems of race a nd poverty that beset us?

The important thing is not whether you veto a bill in the pitched battle of politics but whether you will veto or voice the desire we feel in our hearts to build a new trust in this country--trust in unity and opportunity, trust in ourselves, trust in one nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Mr. President, this is a cry from my heart, so don't charge me with playing politics. I'm asking you to take the issue of race o ut of partisan politics and put it on a moral plane where healing can take place.

I believe the only way it will happen is for you to look into yourself and tell all of us what you plan to do about the issues of race and poverty in this country. Tell us why our legitimate doubts about your convictions are wrong. Tell us how you propose to make us the example of a pluralist democracy whose economy and spirit takes everyone to the higher ground. Tell us what the plan of action is for us to realize our ideals.

Seems white to me and btw thats a great speech, it really was. I liked it.

Even in the struggle’s darkest days, countless Southerners stood as profiles in courage in the face of withering opposition. For every George Wallace, we had a Terry Sanford. It was Lyndon Johnson, a Texan, who shook his fist at a joint session of Congress in 1965 and roared “We SHALL overcome!”

I believe that, as Southerners, all of us in this room have a special responsibility to lead on civil rights. Not only because we know America’s tragic and terrible history when it comes to race, but also because we have led the way in breaking free from that history. And every politician from the South – whether you’re a mayor, a governor, a senator, or president – has a moral obligation to make the mission of civil rights our own.

Unfortunately, there are still some political leaders who take the low road, trying to divide people for their own political ends … some who take the slow road, saying the right thing, but dragging their feet when it comes to progress … and some who take no road, failing the responsibilities of leadership and the calling of our values in their silence.

Leadership is more than photo ops with black children. It means supporting the education and safe streets those children need to have the equal shot in life they deserve as Americans.
Leadership is more than promising to appoint judges who will uphold the law, and then nominating judges who are insensitive to laws that enforce civil rights.

Leadership is more than talking about diversity, while attacking the vehicles to college diversity in court. I am very disappointed that the President has decided to join the fight against affirmative action at the University of Michigan. We should support efforts that increase diversity – and put an end to systems, like legacy admissions, that give a special preference to the most advantaged at the expense of diversity.

Leadership is more than nice words. Leadership is courage, and commitment, and action. It means doing everything we can to make equality a reality — not only in our laws, but in our lives and in lives where the vestiges of discrimination remain a scar on our nation — from a health system where African-Americans get inferior care, to a school system where separate and unequal is the reality in far too many places.

We have come far, but we have far to go:

The Constitution now guarantees blacks the right to vote; now we have to put an end to practices that lead to the deprivation of minority voting rights once and for all.

We have laws guaranteeing equal opportunity; now, we have to address the underlying economic conditions that still result in an average African-American income that is barely half that of whites.

We have laws prohibiting segregation in public education; now we have to do something about a school system that is becoming increasingly re-segregated, leaving too many minority children the victims of inadequate education funding, inferior schools, and indifference.

More than anything, leadership means recognizing that civil rights is not a zero sum game where “we” give something to “them”—whether it’s women or minorities or immigrants.
The civil rights movement was not about some “them.” It was about “us.” All of us. It was about transforming America into a nation so much closer to living out the true meaning of our creed.

What LBJ did and his great society I think put him at a good portion on my list although Vietnam was a big mistake, I admire Lyndon Johnson a lot.

To those who seek to avoid action by their national government in their own communities; who want to and who seek to maintain purely local control over elections, the answer is simple: Open your polling places to all your people. Allow men and women to register and vote whatever the color of their skin. Extend the rights of citizenship to every citizen of this land.

There is no constitutional issue here. The command of the Constitution is plain. There is no moral issue. It is wrong -- deadly wrong -- to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote in this country.

There is no issue of states rights or national rights. There is only the struggle for human rights. I have not the slightest doubt what will be your answer. The last time a president sent a civil rights bill to the Congress it contained a provision to protect voting rights in federal elections. That civil rights bill was passed after eight long months of debate. And when that bill came to my desk from the Congress for my signature, the heart of the voting provision had been eliminated.

This time, on this issue, there must be no delay, no hesitation and no compromise with our purpose. We cannot, we must not, refuse to protect the right of every American to vote in every election that he may desire to participate in. And we ought not and we cannot and we must not wait another 8 months before we get a bill. We have already waited a hundred years and more, and the time for waiting is gone. So I ask you to join me in working long hours -- nights and weekends, if necessary -- to pass this bill. And I don't make that request lightly. For from the window where I sit with the problems of our country I recognize that outside this chamber is the outraged conscience of a nation, the grave concern of many nations, and the harsh judgment of history on our acts.

But even if we pass this bill, the battle will not be over. What happened in Selma is part of a far larger movement which reaches into every section and State of America. It is the effort of American Negroes to secure for themselves the full blessings of American life. Their cause must be our cause too. Because it is not just Negroes, but really it is all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome. As a man whose roots go deeply into Southern soil I know how agonizing racial feelings are. I know how difficult it is to reshape the attitudes and the structure of our society. But a century has passed, more than a hundred years, since the Negro was freed. And he is not fully free tonight.

It was more than a hundred years ago that Abraham Lincoln, a great president of another party, signed the Emancipation Proclamation, but emancipation is a proclamation and not a fact. A century has passed, more than a hundred years, since equality was promised. And yet the Negro is not equal. A century has passed since the day of promise. And the promise is unkept. The time of justice has now come. I tell you that I believe sincerely that no force can hold it back. It is right in the eyes of man and God that it should come.

And when it does, I think that day will brighten the lives of every American. For Negroes are not the only victims. How many white children have gone uneducated, how many white families have lived in stark poverty, how many white lives have been scarred by fear, because we have wasted our energy and our substance to maintain the barriers of hatred and terror? So I say to all of you here, and to all in the nation tonight, that those who appeal to you to hold on to the past do so at the cost of denying you your future. This great, rich, restless country can offer opportunity and education and hope to all: black and white, North and South, sharecropper and city dweller. These are the enemies: poverty, ignorance, disease. They are the enemies and not our fellow man, not our neighbor. And these enemies too, poverty, disease and ignorance, we shall overcome.

Now let none of us in any sections look with prideful righteousness on the troubles in another section, or on the problems of our neighbors. There is really no part of America where the promise of equality has been fully kept. In Buffalo as well as in Birmingham, in Philadelphia as well as in Selma, Americans are struggling for the fruits of freedom. This is one nation. What happens in Selma or in Cincinnati is a matter of legitimate concern to every American. But let each of us look within our own hearts and our own communities, and let each of us put our shoulder to the wheel to root out injustice wherever it exists.

I personally loved what Bobby said, although Senator Bradley, President Johnson, and Senator Edwards had great words as well.

Reports indicate that the Bush Administration intends to submit a brief in the Supreme Court opposing the University of Michigan's use of affirmative action in its admissions policy. This sends the absolute wrong message about the Administration's commitment to civil rights and equal educational opportunity for all Americans. Today is Martin Luther King's birthday, and he would be the first to condemn the shameful hypocrisy of the Administration on race.
Affirmative action is critical to providing educational opportunities for qualified minority students. Much of the progress that we have made in this country in reducing the income and employment gaps between minorities and whites is the direct result of affirmative action programs that have provided minority students with access to colleges and universities.

We know that the struggle for equality is not over. Even with affirmative action, there are significant racial disparities in higher education between minority students and white students. Currently, African-Americans enroll in higher education at 85% the rate of white students. Latinos enroll in higher education at only 80% the rate of white students. As a country, we need to work to close that gap not, – as the Administration now proposes – to widen it.

By providing educational opportunities to talented minority students, affirmative action programs help benefit all of our society. We all benefit when students are allowed to fulfill their true potential. We all benefit from lower poverty rates, and higher income and employment rates. Students benefit from the interaction and learning that takes place among students from different racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Opponents of affirmative action rely on myths that are refuted by numerous studies and even by common sense. They argue that affirmative action is unfair to qualified white students. But as the Michigan admissions programs demonstrate, affirmative action programs do not involve special quotas or set-asides for minority students. A student's racial and ethnic background is one among many factors that are considered in determining admission. In addition to a student's grades, test scores and recommendations, universities consider such factors as whether a student's parents are alumni, a student's socio-economic background, their geographic background and whether they have special artistic, athletic or other talents to contribute. Given the range of factors considered in college admissions, the true unfairness would come from singling out race and ethnicity as the only factors that could not be considered.

Opponents also argue that affirmative action helps unqualified students. The University of Michigan's affirmative action program admits only qualified students. The success of minorities graduating from selective schools as measured by their graduation rate, their performance in professional and graduate school, and their success in future careers and as community leaders is well documented in a recent study by William Bowen and Derek Bok in their book "Shape of the River." Most of the African-American and Latino students accepted under affirmative action come from lower-income backgrounds than white students. They are more likely to have gone to segregated and poorly-funded schools, and much less likely to have parents who had attended college. Yet despite these disadvantages, their success was comparable to their white counterparts.

The Administration suggests that it supports the idea of racial and ethnic diversity, but that it doesn't believe that what it calls "racial preferences" should be used: this basic issue in the Michigan case: is whether racial and ethnic diversity is a compelling governmental interest, not whether it is merely a good thing, but whether, given the fundamental importance of integrated schools in our society, it is a constitutionally compelling interest.

It is wrong to suggest that all universities can enroll a diverse student by relying on race-neutral programs, such as requiring state colleges to accept the top ten percent of high school graduates in the state. A report by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission makes clear, such percentage plans have not significantly improved enrollment of minorities at flagship state universities. In addition, these programs do not even purport to reach graduate or professional schools or private colleges–all of which could be affected by the Supreme Court's ruling.

In failing to support the University of Michigan's policy, the Bush Administration is undermining the heart of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. That guarantee was intended to provide equality of opportunity for all Americans, particularly those who have been denied by our country's history of discrimination.

We have taken many steps in this country to improve educational opportunities from elementary school through higher education, and to reduce racial inequities. But our goal to fulfill the promise of the Equal Protection Clause, and the core values that underlie our democracy has not yet been achieved. I had hoped that the Bush Administration would join us in continuing that all-important effort, and I am deeply disappointed in the decision they appear to be making today.

Statement on the Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana
April 4, 1968
I have bad news for you, for all of our fellow citizens, and people who love peace all over the world, and that is that Martin Luther King was shot and killed tonight.

Martin Luther King dedicated his life to love and to justice for his fellow human beings, and he died because of that effort.

In this difficult day, in this difficult time for the United States, it is perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in. For those of you who are black--considering the evidence there evidently is that there were white people who were responsible--you can be filled with bitterness, with hatred, and a desire for revenge. We can move in that direction as a country, in great polarization--black people amongst black, white people amongst white, filled with hatred toward one another.

Or we can make an effort, as Martin Luther King did, to understand and to comprehend, and to replace that violence, that stain of bloodshed that has spread across our land, with an effort to understand with compassion and love.

For those of you who are black and are tempted to be filled with hatred and distrust at the injustice of such an act, against all white people, I can only say that I feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man. But we have to make an effort in the United States, we have to make an effort to understand, to go beyond these rather difficult times.

My favorite poet was Aeschylus. He wrote: "In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God."

What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence or lawlessness; but love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or they be black.

So I shall ask you tonight to return home, to say a prayer for the family of Martin Luther King, that's true, but more importantly to say a prayer for our own country, which all of us love--a prayer for understanding and that compassion of which I spoke.

We can do well in this country. We will have difficult times; we've had difficult times in the past; we will have difficult times in the future. It is not the end of violence; it is not the end of lawlessness; it is not the end of disorder.

But the vast majority of white people and the vast majority of black people in this country want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings who abide in our land.

Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world.

Let us dedicate ourselves to that, and say a prayer for our country and for our people

I think that it's really hard to change the way people feel about race, so, yeah, you want to talk about race all the time. I don't get how he says that a white person will never understand what it's like to be black, however, most of what follows is about how empathy is more important than laws.

He is running for president. The president signs laws and then enforces them. My feeling is that, if he's committed to the legal end of it, the change in feelings about race will follow. Going after the freelings and devaluing the importance of the laws not only puts the cart before the horse, but it's like saying, hey, government, don't do what you do best. What government does best is making and enforcing laws.

Also, WJC is NOT the ony president to talk about race. JFK delivered a speech to the nation on TV about what was happening in Oxford, Miss, which is damn inspiring.

I'm going to try to find a copy...

and I commend Dean for making it. But it's not all that impressive or innovative or cutting edge. And he's not the only once saying such things.

Dean supporters continue to miss the issue. No one is suggesting that Dean is not sensitive about race or that he doesn't believe in equal rights or that he's not talking about race to white people. The problem is that Dean seems to believe that he's doing what NO ONE else is doing, that he is somehow superior to all other white politicians on issues of race. His arrogance and condescension toward the other candidates and other politicians - most of whom have been out in front on these issues long before Dean ever said a word about it - is unseemly and unwarranted.

As I've already said, if Dean is talking about race, that's great. He should talk about it. And if wants to talk about the fact that he talks about, more power to him. But he needs to stop pointing fingers at everyone else as if he is the Great White Prophet of Race. He is not. And the more he behaves that way, the more he will alienate anyone who is not so enamoured of him that they believe his stuff doesn't stink. And it will do him in.

Of course its good Dean is speaking out on race more power to him, but when I see people acting like hes all alone on that issue or that hes the best ever on it, I get flustered. Take no offense. I wouldnt go as far to say its arrogant but more misleading.

its snappy anti-Dean headline?

From the same columnist:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A62286-2003Jul2¬Found=true

Lieberman was not trolling for dollars in cyberspace at that time of night because a few thousand dollars here or there would help him buy more ads in New Hampshire or hire more staff in Iowa. No, this was about the expectations game--that quarterly, election-time exercise, beloved in Washington, when candidates reveal how much loot they've hauled in and the pontificators explain what it all means.

This is serious business: Money ain't everything, but in politics, it's a lot. Political observers play close attention to second-quarter fundraising as a sign of a candidate's strength, and raising lots of money early becomes even more important this year given the early, compressed 2004 primary schedule. Yet in many ways, it's a game as well: The publicity generated by the stories about the fundraising is as important as the fundraising itself. Money begets coverage, which confers respectability and status

Lieberman's staff on Monday indicated that it planned to count every check before it announced publicly their second-quarter results. Fair enough. Technically, they don't have to reveal anything until July 15, when they are required by law to report second quarter results to the Federal Election Commission. (Truth be told, the second-quarter picture won't be completely clear until that point.)

In their restraint, the Lieberman folks implied--and reporters inferred--that the campaign had not done as well as it should have. And it set about much speculation about whether Lieberman--who is leading the field in most national polls--is in trouble. After all, the presidential nominating contest is more a series of state elections than one big national election. And in that regard, the guy who is generating the heat in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire is former Vermont governor Howard Dean.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1273-2003Jul16.html

The Contortions of the Pro-War Democrats

Are some of the Democratic presidential candidates trying to have it both ways on Iraq?

In recent days, Democrats have escalated their criticism of the Bush administration's pre-war claims about the threat posed by Iraq. Four of the major candidates who voted for the war resolution last year are now raising serious questions about the administration's handling of the Iraq situation, while maintaining that they did the right thing by supporting the march to war.

Sens. John Kerry (Mass.), Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), and John Edwards (N.C.) and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) have all stepped up their rhetoric about either Bush's pre-war claims or his post-war planning or both. Kerry, for instance, has been very forceful in criticizing the way the administration has handled its post-war planning, saying that essentially the administration had no plan for securing the peace after the war ended.

Asked if he was still comfortable with his vote authorizing the president to use force, Kerry did not hesitate. "I have no question about the decision I made," he said. "Even Hans Blix said they weren't in compliance."

So now Kerry is saying his vote was based on faulty intelligence from the administration while still maintaining that he has absolutely no question about the validity of his vote. But if the intelligence was faulty, doesn't that call into question a vote based on it? Not in Kerry's view.

about race in front of white crowds and Clinton was the other than hes wrong. I will support him if hes the nominee but if this is true, it flusters me. All Ive done is shared reflections on great speeches by dems of the best and showed some of my own.