Two Civilized Men Among the Barbarians (Kucinch & Sharpton)

[Karmadillo]

These guys are never going to get themselves invited on Meet the Press if they keep writing this kind of stuff.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16929

Two Civilized Men Among the Barbarians
By Glen Ford and Peter Gamble, The Black Commentator
October 9, 2003

The character of much of what passes for debate in the United States signals that the nation has become the moral equivalent of Tobacco Road, a backwater of civilization.

Humankind has traveled a long journey since the time when some folks walked out of Africa, and others decided to stay. Yet at the American center of the Earth's material wealth and military power, human progress has been short-circuited – smothered – by a ruling group bent on dragging the rest of the species toward a social and moral dead end.

This hyper-aggressive group maintains an iron grip on both the mechanisms and the terms of civil discussion, retarding the rest of the citizenry's ability to think and speak like other humans privileged to live in the developed countries. American political conversation is becoming nonsensical, divorced from the very purposes of life.

Measured by the most minimal standards of the modern, industrial world, only two of 10 Democratic candidates for President passed civilized muster at a recent debate in New York City: Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Rev. Al Sharpton. The rest of the field, to varying degrees, fail to even comprehend modern assumptions of what it is to be human, living among other humans.

The civilizational divide

Why do we work? What is the purpose of industry and commerce? Do other peoples have rights that stronger nations are bound to respect? Only Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton appear prepared to take part in the evolving global discussion on the central issues facing humanity, Americans included. Other nations have begun fashioning answers to these questions, to the moral, material and physical betterment of their inhabitants. They are reaping the benefits of a long and sometimes bloody debate over humans' obligations to one another, and the proper uses of wealth and power.

more...

[DemBones DemBones]

1. The Black Commentator has so many excellent articles.

Thanks for bringing this one to DUers' attention.

[JohnKleeb]

2. those two do the best imo of pursing social and economic justice

[KittyWampus]

7. Well This Article Is Excrement

Apparently Carol Mosley-Braun is a PNAC'er designed steal the Presidency from Al Sharpton.

Carol MB is a great center Left candidate who speaks to the issues and has attacked no other candidate.

Whoever wrote this is calling her a "barbarian".

Hopefully, people here on DU will actually READ THE WHOLE THING before lauding the authors.

Just because some Left wing extremist says ONE thing you agree with- don't just blindly support them.

..........................................................................................................................................................................

Possibly hoping to somehow escape from marginality, Carol
Mosley-Braun revealed that in the final analysis she, too, is a creature of
barbarism. Moseley-Braun has opposed the war for nearly as long and
as fervently as Kucinich and Sharpton but, like Lot's wife, at the critical
moment she looks back – and is lost.

Braun: "...it is absolutely, I think, critical that we not cut and run..." In the
end, the former U.S. Senator cannot escape the imperatives of Manifest
Destiny. By her moral compass, demonstrations of U.S. resolve are
more important than other people's national sovereignty. The black
woman from Chicago cannot imagine that she is talking like a barbarian,
that such patterns of thought are the principal threats to the survival of
the human race – in short, that she is warring against civilization.

Seconds later, Moseley-Braun waged war against English as a coherent
language: "...it's going to be important for us to come up with the money
to make certain that our young men and women and our reputation as
leaders in the world is not permanently destroyed by the folly of
preemptive war." It's not so much Moseley-Braun's fault that this
sentence makes no sense. The logic of barbarism does not mesh with
the realities of an inter-dependent globe. It becomes difficult to
communicate in civilized company – the essence of George Bush's
problem at the UN, last month.

[loudnclear]

34. What they say about Braun is absolutely true.

Read the transcript of the debate. I like Carol, but she is too much a product of the white male-dominated system in her thinking.

I remember a Rep. Barbara Lee standing up for her beliefs. She did not want to give Bush a blank check to be used to embezzle the nation's life-blood. Turns out she was absolutely right. Al and Dennis are right too. But we are a nation of cowards and bullies. We never want to look others in the eye; we demand and command fear...not respect. Mutual respect is the fiber of the fabric of peace...we have no fiber.

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. That neither civilized man is considered electable says volumes

"...verily, in that is a lesson to those endowed with sight..."

Koran 24:44

[DemBones DemBones]

4. Indeed it does. And the authors lay our good criteria for

judging whether or not a person is civilized, and explain why America is not civilized.


"Americans think they are guardians of civilization. In reality, they don't even live there. The proof is plain for all to see in the statistics on wealth and public service disparities, infant mortality rates and, most damning, incarceration levels that certify the U.S. as the world's gulag (25 percent of the planet's prisoners). This is barbarism writ large, since these conditions exist as the direct result of public policy, rather than as a consequence of general deprivation or factors external to the nation.


The U.S. evolved as a nation without a real "social contract" – merely an agreement that white males could pursue riches without too much interference from the state. The contract for Indians and blacks took the form of bounties for scalps and bills of sale for slaves. Now a relatively small elite composed of a few million millionaire households, and led by piratical corporate politicians, have seized the state. The people – the whole people – face a multitude of disasters, and desperately need to forge the beginnings of a real social contract, but they have few national historical references to draw upon. The dramatic exception is black America, which has been compelled by history to value justice above all else. "

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. That is one of the most succinct and accurate summaries I have seen

"an agreement that white males could pursue riches without too much interference from the state."

Thank you. If you aren't getting paid to write, you should.

[KittyWampus]

8. So You're Okay With Calling Carol M-B A Barbarian?

In the words of Dennis Kucinich Hellooooooooooooooooooooo!

[revcarol]

13. I was around during the Vietnam War, when "everyone" said,

We gotta see this through to the end." "We gotta stay the course and just try harder, because otherwise those thousands of Americans will have died in vain." "The defense budget needs more money."

Being an enabler of the Bush policy of pre=emption by legitimizing the war in Iraq as somewhere we ought to be and STAY, instead of getting REAL UN peacekeeping troops and REAL humanitarians in there, WE gotta stay. YES, SHE'S A BARBARIAN, MUCH AS i like her and some of her ideas.

Neither AS nor DK said we should cut and run.

[loyalsister]

18. Black and white thinking

"We gotta see this through to the end." "We gotta stay the course and just try harder, because otherwise those thousands of Americans will have died in vain." "The defense budget needs more money."

I don't recall any of the candidates saying anything remotely similar. You appear to have a "with us or against us" POV. Either a person agrees with DK's strategy or they are a barbarian. That's a shame.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

6. Carol Mosley-Braun was on that stage too

I'm just sayin'.

[jbutsz]

9. Kucinich

I would LOVE to be able to vote Kucinich for President; he in my opinion is one truly fitting for such a position of diplomatic leadership and executive integrity, a REAL HUMAN BEING - something rare in American political history, and for once I could vote FOR SOMEONE rather than for or against a party. I don't agree on every word he says by any means, but it's the something behind his words that counts: sincerity. I don't view Kucinich as a politician, but as a true Statesman, and from my point of view VERY few people are deserving of that title in this modern world.

Unfortunately they are not going to let him in. If he was, by some anomaly in American Politics to get the nod to face Bush in 2004, it would forever break my cynicism and pessimism that this country is doomed no matter who gets into office.

[LWolf]

10. That's why

he has my vote in the primary. If we really want a more civilized America, we have to cast our votes that way and live our lives that way.

I am more than aware of the "electability" issue that some DUers seem to think I just don't "get." I know that many people who agree with Dennis or Sharpton in principle won't cast their vote for them. Because winning is more important than principle. And, apparently, it's more exciting to sign on to a candidate that is more "popular." Well, in the general election, that's true. Evicting Bush is a move in the right direction even if you don't like the democratic candidate. But in the primary...what better place to stand on principle and cast your vote for what you believe in? If there is no place or reason left to vote your beliefs, why bother? No wonder we have so many people not showing up at the polls.

I thought this was a powerful, badly needed article. I wish it were printed in mainstream media.

It was harsh, but, IMO, accurate. I think it was a little too harsh with CMB; she also stands apart from the rest of the pack. I like her, and I would like to see her working for us for years to come.

[IrateCitizen]

15. Dennis is sowing the winds with the seeds of true progress...

and THAT is why his candidacy could quite possibly be the MOST important one out there.

I harbor no illusions that he will win the nomination. But I also have sent him money on several occasions. Why? Because his candidacy is an opportunity to plant seeds in the consciousness of the people. His candidacy is an interjection of sanity -- especially with regard to basic issues of peace, militarism and economic justice -- into a culture and country that has ventured into the realm of insanity, militarism and market fundamentalism.

It is just such a sad commentary on what we are as a society when ideas like a "Department of Peace" and cutting the Pentagon budget to provide things like health care are laughed off as "fantasies".

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. Exactly, LWolf!

Back in 1988, I voted for Jesse Jackson in the Oregon primary. By that point, it was already obvious that Dukakis was going to get the nomination, but like 39% of Oregon Dems that year, I thought that Dukakis, while an honorable man, was a lousy candidate, too timid in opposing the Reagan administration and picking the wrong points to oppose when he did.

(Let's once and for all lay aside the DLC myth that Dukakis lost because he was "too liberal"--that intended slur that DLC apologists and Republicans blithely toss about and never define. He ran a painfully lousy campaign and blew an initial 17-point lead, regaining a little--but not enough--after he decided to start fighting.)

My primary vote for Jesse was a plea to the DNC to grow a spine, get some ideals and a coherent set of alternatives to the Reagan Reactionary Revolution, and go after the Repiggies with everything they had.

When I advocate for Dennis in the Minnesota caucuses, it will be a plea for the DNC to grow a spine, get some ideals and the will to undo the Reagan Reactionary Revolution, and to go after the Repiggies with everything they have.

[morgan2]

12. just because you feel hopeless..

dont give up on him. What I suggest is that you think of him as your first choice in an instant run off voting system. Support him until he is out, then move to your second choice.

[JanMichael]

11. Awesome article! Sharpton is hilarious...

"Rev. Sharpton also opposes NAFTA and the World Trade Organization. "I disagreed with NAFTA when Clinton was in, and I think that we have come to see that that disagreement was correct," said Sharpton, following up on Kucinich's broadside. "I think that we cannot have trade policy that overlooks labor, overlooks workers' rights, overlooks environmental concerns. We can't act like just because something is trade, that also that makes it right. African-Americans are here on a bad trade policy."


"Now that's breaking it down in civilized language. The slave trade was fantastically lucrative, a centuries-long commerce that shaped every society in the Americas south of Canada and allowed Europe to assume its unnatural position of dominance in the world. "I'm here on a bad trade policy," said Rev. Al. "So just because it's trade, doesn't mean that it is good and it is something that we should support."

Rock on Al!

DK too. I wish that one of these guys could make it on the ticket...

[birdman]

14. This article is appalling

It's one thing to disagree with someone politically
but to denigrate the serious candidates as "barbarians"
and elevate the unrealistic candidacies of Sharpton and
Kucinich is a gross insult to the 98% of Democrats who favor
the serious candidates.

Kucinich is a good guy who has some, well, frankly whacky ideas
(space based mind control ? Anybody home there, Dennis ?).

Anybody who considers Sharpton a "civilized" alternative to
Dean, Kerry, etc. need only go to Google and type in "Tawana
Brawley" or contemplate his endorsement of the eminently civilized
Al D'Amato.

This article is an insult to Democrats.

[sangh0]

17. "Serious candidates"?

If they're so serious, then how come they're not talking about so-called "free" trade and it's effect on the freedoms of third world peoples, like how the slaves were brought to America?

And while Sharpton's behavior during the Brawley affair was certainly not the height of civilization, we could say the same about the behavior of the "serious candidates" during the Iraq resolution debate, and their positions on NAFTA, GATT, WTO, IMF, WB, etc

[birdman]

19. I have a feeling that the slave trade is not going to be a big issue

next year.

And neither, in fact, is NAFTA, GATT, etc.

The public doesn't regard those things as big issues
and a candidate who makes them a centerpiece is distracting
themselves from the issues the public does care about.

[DuctapeFatwa]

24. The affluent public does not view increasing poverty as an issue

They do not view any of the legacy of the slave trade, with which millions of Americans live daily, as an issue.

So anxious are they to return to feudalism and strengthen and institutionalize the new, renamed and respun slave trade that they are naturally impatient with these foolish notions of prosperity without exploitation.

[sangh0]

26. And the "serious" candidates ignore that

because the public isn't interested. So much for their seriousness.

[birdman]

29. I, in fact, do see poverty as an issue

and I wrote about my experiences working in the inner city
for DU last year.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/11/02_darryl.html

But you will get nowhere trying to bring up issues like the slave
trade or reparations. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not
feel responsible (nor should they) for things that happened so long
ago.

[sangh0]

35. What a serious position to take. Not!

"The overwhelming majority of Americans do not feel responsible" and so the "serious" candidates ignore it. IMO, it's not serious to ignore serious issues; It's shallow to base ones positions solely on the basis of popularity.

[birdman]

41. Yes, a serious candidate is one who can get elected

The positions of people who can't get elected are not
of much use to anyone are they ?

Who's likely to do the things that the poor need
(national health care, greater aid to education, support
for unions, protect social security etc) ?

Dean, Kerry etc. who might be in a position to promote those things ?

or Sharpton and Kucinich who never will ?

I wish mainstream candidates paid more attention to the problems
of the poor and I say so in my article but the poor don't vote
as much as they should and for a candidate to be able to do any
good at all he has to appeal to the people who vote.

[DuctapeFatwa]

42. Serious candidates are those who enjoy the support of the affluent classes

Many of whom express their concerns about poverty and political fund-raisers that provide needed jobs for minority catering company employees.

Most of these people thank the brown person who pours their Chablis with a warm sincere smile, and make a special effort to personally greet any minority guests, so there can be no doubt that they embrace diversity. There are several Asians at the private school their own kids attend, and they don't have a problem with that at all.

Smiling again at the impressive handful of brown faces among the guests, they are pleased with the attendance, so many cars in the parking lot of the gated community.

[sangh0]

44. I really doubt that

merely raising these issues will lead to a certain defeat. And I would not discount the ability of the least electable to influence policy and bring about change. Sharpton has never held any public office, but he has (almost single-handedly) made racial profiling an issue of national interest. Also, Jesse Jackson managed to shake some things up in the DNC by running for President, even though he was unelectable. Raising unpopular isssues, and raising popular ones are not mutually exclusive

[DuctapeFatwa]

55. Racial profiling is still standard practice, I don't get part of your post

Which issues should not be raised?

[IrateCitizen]

25. Yup. The public issues are cheap gas for their SUV's...

and the right to pay the lowest possible price for clothing and electronics. Everything else is suborned to these concerns.

And the only ones who are "serious" candidates are those who don't challenge this narrowminded view of the world.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. I get the distinct impression, birdman

that job losses caused by manufacturing being moved to the Third World are a huge issue with the public.

Maybe you and your friends aren't affected by it, but there's a lot of anguish in the former manufacturing centers of this country, and there seems to be no end to the announcements of plant closings.

One way to gauge the opinions of working class people is to ride the buses in your city and listen to the conversations. News of 500 people fired here and 1200 fired there are tremendously anxiety-provoking to people who are only one paycheck away from the streets.

[IrateCitizen]

20. sangh0 -- is that really you?!?!

I'm surprised (and very impressed) to see you posting something like this.

The point of the article, IMHO, is that this dog-eat-dog mentality, along with a willingness to "shoot first and ask questions later" has so infected our society at large that what was once considered barbarous behavior is now considered mainstream.

Hence, why candidates who espouse ideas that look to stem the tide of barbarism are denounced as "not serious".

[birdman]

21. I seriously object to the use of the word "barbarian"

especially coming from somebody who thinks I should be
supporting Al Sharpton, of all people (considering the
Rev. Al's, shall we be kind and say checkered, past).

Throwing around words like that is not going to improve
the chances of civilized discourse.

[IrateCitizen]

22. You're right... it has the same effect as "Alamo Democrats"

in regards to promoting civilized discourse. :eyes:

And while I would not advocate calling any of the candidates "barbarians" per se, I would not hesitate to say that our society has been rapidly slipping into barbarism for quite some time. Any use of the term "barbarian" toward any of the nominees is just a means of reflecting that.

[birdman]

32. Alamo "D's"

refers to a tendency of a few people on this board to
demand ideological purity from candidates. That's a
little different from calling candidates (and by extension
those who support them) barbarians.

[IrateCitizen]

36. Allow me to replay your cause for objection...

Throwing around words like that is not going to improve
the chances of civilized discourse.

I'm not arguing that throwing around a term like "barbarians" is somehow GOING to improve civilized discourse. What I challenged you on is the fact that you denounce this, but yet you somehow think that using a term like "Alamo D's" is going to improve the chances of civilized discourse.

And before you accuse me of going off subject, YOU are the one who made this an argument over semantics, NOT me.

[birdman]

40. Alamos do not want discourse

They want martyrdom. And I think you know exactly who I'm
talking about

They don't discuss; they pontificate (just about every day)
about how the Democrats are so totally unworthy of them because
the Dems don't scream perpetually about the 2000 election,
the military-industrial complex, the corporate media
(or just corporations in general) and that's because they're
all tools of the DLC.

I'm sure you see these threads just like I do. And their purpose
is not to encourage discourse but to denounce any Dem who isn't
just like them as a tool of the Bushes. And, of course, they
can't support any Dem who has the remotest chance of winning because
they're all Bush-lite and so the Alamos are forced to vote Green
or not vote or write in Emma Goldman.

They're not going to change so rather than fight them I invented
a name for them.

[MuseRider]

46. I am one of those

who have been refered to as an Alamo Dem. I would love to have political discourse but as soon as some see the DK avatar there is no room for discourse. Now, I am not angry and not pontificating here. Tell me though, under the circumstances the Kucinich supporters are in what can they/we do? People either love him, hate him and won't discuss or like him but won't vote for him so don't want to listen or discuss. He has been totally ignored by many here who simply just prefer to focus on the "frontrunners." I love the passion I see with all of them but why is there no room for discussion with the DK supporters? Part of the pontificating is because he is just dismissed by so many. If you are not allowed in the discussion the pontificating is about all you have left. Now, I hate to have to say this everytime I post these days, but...I am really looking for a solution. I would love to be in on the discussions but when the response is the way it has been here it is less than satisfying. Please note...I am not refering to you specifically and thank you to the the folks who have come in and said they are for someone else but sent money anyway.

[birdman]

47. I happen to like Kucinich

although I have to cringe when I read about the Department of Peace
or the mind control weapons in space because such proposals are
so easy to ridicule.

My problem is with people would let Bush stay in office rather than
support one of the other candidates because they won't adhere to a
narrow ideological view. I was extremely disappointed in Kerry's war vote but if somebody tells me that there's no difference between
Kerry and Bush then I think that person is delusional.

Vote for DK in your state's primary and do all you can to advance his
candidacy but keep your eye on the bigger goal which has to be getting
rid of Bush.

[Mairead]

53. You don't get it. (Not that I think that's accidental)

It's like we're in a buying club -- we're each going to get a good deal on a car if we buy enough of them. And 50-75 of you are angry at the 25 of us who are holding out for a boring old hi-mileage hybrid while you guys want to buy SUVs with lots of chrome and big, thick tires. You're actually going to put your vehicle to exactly the same use we are ours, but you're captivated by the image. You're convinced, deep down, that owning a big candy-apple red SUV with lots of chrome will signal to all who see you that you are a professional, social, and sexual success that eclipses the success of anyone who'd drive a boring little hybrid. You know about the many extra costs, but you've convinced yourself that you're going to have to haul the NY Philharmonic plus all their instruments up and down mountainsides every weekend, something that, of course, the little hybrid could never handle. When people question you about how you've been getting by so far, you get angry because that's not the point, the point is that the fscking hybrid is not suitable.

And you are FURIOUS when you think that we might deny you the fulfillment of your completely reasonable and rational needs just because we're too 'purist' to let go of the idea that the hybrid is the most sensible choice.

[LWolf]

54. Interesting.

All my time hanging out here, and I've missed the "Alamo dem" label; this thread is the first I've read it.

I guess people who actually choose candidates based on issues, and who believe that supportingtheir principles is the right thing to do...need to be slammed somehow so they don't make anyone else look bad? Or what? Or am I totally missing the point since I've never run into a discussion about them?

Good points, MuseRider.

[sangh0]

27. I WOULD seriously object to the use of the word "barbarian"

except I'm too busy objecting to stolen elections, immoral wars, our govts complicity in the slaughter of 3,000 Americans, our support for repressive dictators, the proliferation of weapons both large and small, and so on.

Call me jaded

[birdman]

31. If you're going to throw around phrases like

"our govts complicity in the slaughter of 3,000 Americans"

then your objections to legtimate issues will be ignored.


You can't throw around nutcake conspiracy theories with no evidence
to support them and expect to be taken seriously.

[sangh0]

37. I guess it's not serious

to refer to our govt's decades-long support for the repressive govts of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, UAE, Kuwait, etc in order to continue our dependence of foriegn oil. After all, it's not as if the voting public is concerned about what's going in the MidEast.

Yeah, right.

[noiretextatique]

48. barbaric, isn't it?

:eyes:

[sangh0]

49. Sure is

but to paraphrase Krugman's op-ed in todays NY Times "our govt is barbaric. Yes, I know that's a barbaric thing to say. But it's also the truth."

[DuctapeFatwa]

23. The "serious" candidates all guarantee continuation of the status quo

The fact is, birdman's view is that of most of the affluent voting class, and an excellent illustration of the danger of altering any of the conditions that have been so successful in virtually disenfranchising most minority and low income voters.

It is also why a political solution to the current crisis is neither practical or likely.

I have not endorsed any candidate, however I have stated my preference for a political solution, although I acknowledge that such is not realistic.

[diamondsoul]

45. "Whacky ideas"

Ok, I'm fed up with this accusation about the Space Preservation Act.

Here's the link to the full text of the bill
http://www.skyhighway.com/~chemtrails/doc/spacepreservationact2001.html

It's copied there exactly as it appears in Thomas Legislative Library, and still contains the part you refer to-

(2)(A) The terms `weapon' and `weapons system' mean a device capable of any of the following:

(i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by--

(I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;

(II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;

(III) directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or
extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object; or

(IV) any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.

(ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)--

(I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B);

(II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or

(III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.

As I understand it those sections were removed and the bill resubmitted. Most people are well aware that the Government has conducted studies in an effort to control behavior of human beings, by use of drugs, so where's the "whackiness" in believing they might continue the same research using new technologies? Where's the "whackiness" in wanting to prevent the misuse or abuse of possible future technology? I don't see it, sorry. I think the bill should have been passed as written, fully comprehensive and preventive.

[Snellius]

16. I would add Edwards to that list

What impressed me about Edwards last night was not so much what he said -- though his rich people sitting around their swimming pools reading their statements was great -- but because he was the only one that actually seemed to be listening to the other candidates, most of whom seemed wrapped up in themselves.

[PurityOfEssence]

52. He was also the most inclusive and decent of the bunch

He made it a point to say that speaking of his origins was in no way meant to be taken as a dismissal of the value of Kerry and Dean as candidates or humans, and once again said that they were nice people. He was so damned humble and gentle about the whole thing that Sharpton took it upon himself to bring it up later and praise Edwards.

Jesus Christ, Edwards, in a wide shot, had his arms outstretched and was praising the whole bunch of them AGAIN, as he's done in previous debates, and didn't criticise any of them.

I can't believe some of the people on this board, they're (as John Clese has said) "blinkered pig-ignorant philistines" at times. It's like I'm in some alternate universe watching an entirely different show.

Jeff Greenfield went after Edwards with naked character assassination, and John handled himself articulately and honorably.

The essence of this thread is incomprehensible.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

33. agreed

[maha]

38. One rarely sees ...

... such unmitigated garbage on DU, but there it is.

Sharpton is a fun guy to listen to, but he's no humanitarian; he's an opportunist. I realize it's been awhile since the Tewana Brawley episode, but if you live near NYC, his stompin' grounds, you'd know he hasn't changed much since then. For example, he practically kidnapped the Amadou Diallo family after that unfortunate incident. Mr. Diallo's mother realized after a while that Sharpton was just using her to get attention for himself and stopped having anything to do with him.

Kucinich is the biggest demagogue in the group; I say he even beats Lieberman in that department. Of the 9 candidates, he's most likely to toss out straw man and "when did you stop beating your wife" questions at the other Dems, as he did last night.

You've picked the wrong pair to be your heroes.

[Karmadillo]

39. I didn't get to much of the debate last night. What did Kucinich say

that would justify his being called a demagogue?

[maha]

56. Several things, but

He's critical of the other candidates because they would approve at least part of the $87 billion for reconstruction and maintaining troops. Kucinich says (in this and the last debate) that he would approve NO more money and would just bring the troops HOME, but then when pressed about leaving Iraq a mess he trots out his (sarcasm)unique and original(/sarcasm) idea that we should turn the mess over to the UN first and then bring the troops home. The fact that our troops are sitting in Iraq with inadequate housing and protection and eating one meal a day is not a problem; we can just pull out next week and let the UN clean it up.

Anyway, the trick he pulls is that he'll yell at another candidate, in effect, "you want to spend the $87 billion to keep the troops in Iraq," as if he's the only one who wants to bring the troops home. The fact is, he's the only one who won't or can't see that those troops will not be coming home next week, and if we don't want them to either starve to death or run out of bullets to defend themselves with, we're going to have to spend some more money. It's unfortunate, but that's how it is.

[noiretextatique]

43. another home run

barbarian is absolutely the correct description. i am not surprise by the defense of barbarism here...typical of the delusional myopia of the american collective consciousness.

[Darranar]

50. This doesn't help...

anyone.

The other seven candidates are far from barbaric. The only barbaric candidate running in this race is GEORGE W. BUSH.

The article does make a few legitimat points, but it's too divisive for my tastes.

[JohnKleeb]

51. right about that