Support NeoGAF

[eu pfhor ia]

Second, it's part of a larger problem which Bernie has landed himself in where he inadvertently reinforces the notion that black people and poverty go hand in hand. This is troubling as it paints the picture that black people are a child like race who must be raised up by the responsible and caring adult white savior. This is a problem of many ultra-liberal white people, it's simply the liberal side of racism. The republicans paint minorities as moochers who are always trying to take from the government so they can sit on their butts, collect their welfare, and spend it on lottery tickets and 40 oz. beer. However, for liberal democrats the racism is more subtle in that it is veiled in an attempt to "better" black folk and other minorities. Obviously, this notion that blacks need to be cared for and bettered is code-word racism in the guise of smiling white faces. These liberals talk about providing more welfare, food drive programs, free lunches, and inner city education.

This is a conservative economic critique straight out of the Milton Friedman and other supply-side/Reaganomics/austrian school/whatever-else-they're-named playbook, which boils down to "social welfare programs are the REAL racism". They have some points that should be well taken by anyone in America, but also ignore how how conservatives have been systematically undermining those same economic policies for decades with all the layers of bureaucracy and political fuckery we've built up in this country. We've really backed ourselves into a corner where we're torn between needing both less and more government regulation at the same time.

Again, we can definitely agree that Sanders is failing to really bother being clear about what the causal relationships of all these things are or might be.

 

[dabig2]

Blacks and other minorities in general are disproportionately hurt more in our capitalist system. Full stop. I really don't think his statement was that out of turn like some think here, just poorly stated because it lacks the qualifiers. But modern, segregated ghettos are historically dominated by impoverished minorities and this was by design by our government.

Pretty good NPR convo with Richard Rothstein on this from last year:
Historian Says Don't 'Sanitize' How Our Government Created Ghettos

Fifty years after the repeal of Jim Crow, many African-Americans still live in segregated ghettos in the country's metropolitan areas. Richard Rothstein, a research associate at the Economic Policy Institute, has spent years studying the history of residential segregation in America.

"We have a myth today that the ghettos in metropolitan areas around the country are what the Supreme Court calls 'de-facto' — just the accident of the fact that people have not enough income to move into middle class neighborhoods or because real estate agents steered black and white families to different neighborhoods or because there was white flight," Rothstein tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross.

"It was not the unintended effect of benign policies," he says. "It was an explicit, racially purposeful policy that was pursued at all levels of government, and that's the reason we have these ghettos today and we are reaping the fruits of those policies."

...
This is a term that we no longer use because we're embarrassed to talk about it, and we need to confront our history and stop sanitizing our language and talk openly about what we've done as a nation and what we need to do to undo it. And we can't talk openly if we're going to use euphemisms instead of being explicit about what the reality is.

So I"m actually happy that ghettos are being talked about and I hope more white people delve into why and how they were created instead of tracking to the "oh but plenty of white people are poor too!" angle. We need to be more upfront about the conspiracy committed by our government in forcing as many black people as they could into spirals of poverty and destruction in segregated ghettos. White poverty sucks, but black poverty is on another scale and it was engineered to be so.

 

[AlphaDump]

She obviously thought his mum was part of the same family or from the same part of town. How you took her (mistaken) assumption to mean she believes all black people are poor is perplexing to me. Whilst I could be wrong, to me it just seems like a situational assumption.

either way it is a weird thing to be assertive on considering you werent there.


"just a situational assumption" is exactly the point of the issue.

 

[RustyNails]

I felt Bernie had a very real moment talking about his loss during the Nazi holocaust of Jews yesterday. It sucks that we're not talking about it, like at all. I didn't even knew that side to Bernie Sanders. I wish we knew more about it

 

[BlastProcessing]

It's a real shame that no one reads anymore. Otherwise intelligent individuals are allowing themselves to be played by media spin.

Read more then just the headlines people.

The full quote doesn't really change anything, combined with his attempt at a correction this morning it's a real bad look.

 

[NullPointer]

Does anybody honestly think that Sanders doesn't think white people, or non African-Americans know what its like to be poor?

Anybody?

Way to get lost in the words and lose complete sight of his meaning.

 

[AlphaDump]

Does anybody honestly think that Sanders doesn't think white people, or non African-Americans know what its like to be poor?

Anybody?

Way to get lost in the words and lose complete sight of his meaning.

no one is arguing that....?


regardless, foxtrot3d said it much better than I ever could.

 

[M0nochromatic]

The full quote doesn't really change anything, combined with his attempt at a correction this morning it's a real bad look.

Yeah, if you'r more concerned with appearances then substance, sure.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Alright, so as a black guy I'm going to try to explain to people why Bernie's comment and other similar comments he's made in the past are troubling and do not resonate with black people. He stated that white people don't know what it's like to be "poor" and/or live in a "ghetto." Now, the statement is problematic for a whole host of reasons but I'm going to trying to break it all down for people to understand, First, the statement is simply false, there are plenty of white people who have and are experiencing poverty in addition to living in "ghettos."

Second, it's part of a larger problem which Bernie has landed himself in where he inadvertently reinforces the notion that black people and poverty go hand in hand. This is troubling as it paints the picture that black people are a child like race who must be raised up by the responsible and caring adult white savior. This is a problem of many ultra-liberal white people, it's simply the liberal side of racism.

The republicans paint minorities as moochers who are always trying to take from the government so they can sit on their butts, collect their welfare, and spend it on lottery tickets and 40 oz. beer. However, for liberal democrats the racism is more subtle in that it is veiled in an attempt to "better" black folk and other minorities. Obviously, this notion that blacks need to be cared for and bettered is code-word racism in the guise of smiling white faces. These liberals talk about providing more welfare, food drive programs, free lunches, and inner city education.

Disclaimer: I am white and could be 100% off, but I tend to agree with UnemployedVillain more.

I just don't see it as him being condescending. He was addressing real inequalities that really exist. If someone talks about providing more welfare/social programs/etc., perhaps sometimes it is indeed condescension, but in Bernie's case it seems plainly obvious that he talks about addressing or fighting these inequalities. Now perhaps they are not the best solutions, and that can be debated, but if someone is taking all of his statements on bad faith, well, how is that productive?

You know I was going to respond to your post but nope, I stopped after that part. Yes, it was my mother's fault that because she was black she should have been mistaken as poor.

Um... He didn't say it was your mother's fault? Where are you getting this? You can disagree with his conclusion that the lady wasn't racist, but that's a different thing. You seem to be assuming bad faith where there is none.

 

[iamBlkpleAsedoNt]

no one is arguing that....?


either way, foxtrot3d said it much better than I ever could.

Thank goodness someone else has said it. Liberal racism is more subtle and in my opinion more patronizing. I am the only black male out of hundreds (almost 1000 employees). My most annoying pet peeve is when I' make a small mistake and in an attempt to be racially sensitive people act as if they never expected much from me anyway and it's ok because I've already exceeded their expectations of a black person. Literally the most annoying thing as a competent black person is to be patronized by your professional peers because if subconscious racism. A hick in the middle of nowhere Alabama shouting racist slurs is 100x less infuriating than that.

 

[royalan]

Does anybody honestly think that Sanders doesn't think white people, or non African-Americans know what its like to be poor?

Anybody?

Way to get lost in the words and lose complete sight of his meaning.

And that is entirely Bernie's fault.

Look, nobody is thinking that Bernie is racist or thinks that white people don't know what it's like to be poor. The problem is that Bernie is tone deaf.

Hilariously, embarrassingly tone deaf.

And the problem with that is, at this point in the game, when Bernie and his campaign has been so widely criticized when it comes to his handling of race, that he still seems to refuse to get basic dollar store level media training when it comes to handling these questions, it gives the impression that he's, as my mother would put it, hard-headed as shit. And THAT gives the impression that he's really not taking this seriously.

And no, marching with King and getting arrested a few decades ago is not impressive. Nobody cares

 

[NullPointer]

no one is arguing that....?

From reading the article and quote in the OP:

His comment drew swift condemnation on social media, since it appeared that the Vermont lawmaker was implying that only black people live in impoverished communities, reinforcing inaccurate and painful stereotypes that have dogged African-Americans for years.

And that is entirely Bernie's fault.

Yeah, plenty of people have made their minds up already and are just amplifying whatever drama they can find. Its disingenuous at the very least.

And no, marching with King and getting arrested a few decades ago is not impressive. Nobody cares

And this is just sad. We've come to actually holding somebody's involvement in civil rights against them.

I can't wait for this election season to be over. So many people being so entirely full of shit.

 

[Damaniel]

Bernie means well, but there's a reason he's not doing so well with the black community. His statements seem to imply that all black people live in poverty and that economic issues are the most important issue facing the community. Black people exist all the way up and down the economic spectrum, and there are many issues not mentioned by Bernie that affect the entire group - driving while black, being followed in stores (or worse, having the police called for it), risk of being shot by the police... in America, it doesn't how far up the socioeconomic scale a black person is - the same systemic racism affects him or her just as much as it does people at the bottom of that scale. Income inequality is *an* issue, but it far from the only issue, and Bernie seems fixated on the former almost to the exclusion of the rest.

Was he malicious in his statements? Of course not. Is he a little tone deaf when the discussion leaves his 'income inequality' comfort zone? Yeah, kind of. I have no doubt that he'd be a very positive force for starting to address racial issues, but he needs to learn to focus his message and make it clear that racism isn't just about being poor.

 

[King Tubby]

Bernie means well, but there's a reason he's not doing so well with the black community. His statements seem to imply that all black people live in poverty and that economic issues are the most important issue facing the community. Black people exist all the way up and down the economic spectrum, and there are many issues not mentioned by Bernie that affect the entire group - driving while black, being followed in stores (or worse, having the police called for it), risk of being shot by the police... in America, it doesn't how far up the socioeconomic scale a black person is - the same systemic racism affects him or her just as much as it does people at the bottom of that scale. Income inequality is *an* issue, but it far from the only issue, and Bernie seems fixated on the former almost to the exclusion of the rest.

He literally mentioned almost all of those things, and he has talked about them repeatedly before. What the hell.

And no, marching with King and getting arrested a few decades ago is not impressive. Nobody cares

Why do you keep mentioning it then? Who are you talking to?

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

OP should probably be revised to include all of the statements

 

[royalan]

And this is just sad. We've come to actually holding somebody's involvement in civil rights against them.

I can't wait for this election season to be over. So many people being so entirely full of shit.

Nobody is holding it against it him, but it's also not impressive. It means nothing to most black people and our struggles TODAY. It does not win you points, especially when it seems to be the only thing you can point to.

 

[AlphaDump]

From reading the article and quote in the OP:




Yeah, plenty of people have made their minds up already and are just amplifying whatever drama they can find. Its disingenuous at the very least.


And this is just sad. We've come to actually holding somebody's involvement in civil rights against them.

I can't wait for this election season to be over. So many people being so entirely full of shit.

I don't appreciate the bolded at all considering you are in the wrong here.

You asked if that is what people thought he believed. The argument is about how it his statement was implied through the lens of certain demographics. Which is why he needs to clarify his statement.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Yeah, if you'r more concerned with appearances then substance, sure.

I am concerned that, a day later, he wasn't able to identify the problem people had with what he said and you should be too.

 

[NullPointer]

I don't appreciate the bolded at all considering you are in the wrong here.

You asked if that is what people thought he believed. The argument is about how it is implied through the lens of certain demographics. Which is why he needs to clarify his statement.

Only if you take this one statement literally, and out of context with anything else he has spoken about, either in that very debate, or in the campaign, or in his words and actions throughout his long career.

You don't need implications when you have facts and history.

 

[noshten]

Nobody is holding it against it him, but it's also not impressive. It means nothing to most black people and our struggles TODAY. It does not win you points, especially when it seems to be the only thing you can point to.

How many other presidential candidates have been arrested - protesting segregation?
Would you be far more impressed by someone that shoot a bunch of people - because in the past that was a major part of some peoples claim to the White House.
Should he hide his activities as a youth, if I had done the same as a 20 year old - I'd be proud and I'd be proud of serving people in Vermont for three decades as well.

 

[nib95]

From reading the article and quote in the OP:


Yeah, plenty of people have made their minds up already and are just amplifying whatever drama they can find. Its disingenuous at the very least.


And this is just sad. We've come to actually holding somebody's involvement in civil rights against them.

I can't wait for this election season to be over. So many people being so entirely full of shit.

Completely agree. It's a sorry state of affairs, but I've always thought this would be the case. I apologise if I offend anyone, but I've always felt a large portion of the American public is too easily swayed by the establishment and by the prominent media. Be it on how many treat or view whistle blowers, the occupy movement, the Iraq war (before it became unpopular) and so on. The establishment often gets what the establishment wants, and by that I mean the establishment on the right or left. It seems like social media presence or grass roots movements as a forefront of messaging, generally aren't enough to overcome the sway of mainstream media.

It's obvious Hilary has the bulk of the media and establishment support (notably from mainstream or prominent centre and left), and I've no doubt this sort of vitriol will only increase going forward. Bernie's positive influences and positions will be continously disregarded, instead replaced with fearmomgering, exaggerations and false narratives, and whilst I won't deny that it happens and will happen on both sides, I think it's clear Hilary will benefit from more co-ordinated, widespread and influential versions of attack.

 

[AlphaDump]

Only if you take this one statement literally, and out of context with anything else he has spoken about, either in that very debate, or in the campaign, or in his words and actions throughout his long career.

You don't need implications when you have facts and history.

The thread is about Bernie clarifying that one statement, so I don't need to hypothetically think about how it comes off.

 

[boiled goose]

Neogaf outraged about this?

Old guy uses slightly outdated terminology in a harmless way. A guy who has a long history of fighting for racial justice.

Attacking Bernie over this is pathetic.

A fair thing could be to say he is old and out of touch. To imply anything more is embarrassing.

We have already seen him update his jargon. He stopped saying blacks and using African Americans instead.

No big deal...

 

[royalan]

How many other presidential candidates have been arrested - protesting segregation?
Would you be far more impressed by someone that shoot a bunch of people - because in the past that was a major part of some peoples claim to the White House.
Should he hide his activities as a youth, if I had done the same as a 20 year old - I'd be proud to and I'd be proud of serving people in Vermont for three decades as well.

Again, that he's running for president doesn't make it special. Black people know civil rights heroes. White people, by and large, don't. I would suspect, personally, that this plays a huge role in why Bernie's civil rights past is resonating more with non-black people than it is black people themselves.

Nobody is holding it against him. Nobody is criticizing him for it. It's just not making our panties drop, as evidenced by his dismal polling. So it would be to his benefit to learn how to answer these questions and approach this subject in a more modern way.

 

[boiled goose]

Completely agree. It's a sorry state of affairs, but I've always thought this would be the case. I apologise if I offend anyone, but I've always felt a large portion of the American public is too easily swayed by the establishment and by the prominent media. Be it on how many treat or view whistle blowers, the occupy movement, the Iraq war (before it became unpopular) and so on. The establishment often gets what the establishment wants, and by that I mean the establishment on the right or left. It seems like social media presence or grass root movements as a forefront of messaging, generally aren't enough to overcome the sway of mainstream media.

It's obvious Hilary has the bulk of the media and establishment support, and I've no doubt this sort of vitriol will only increase going forward. Bernie's positive influences and positions will be continously disregarded, instead replaced with fearmomgering, exaggerations and false narratives, and whilst I won't deny that it happens and will happen on both sides, I think it's clear Hilary will benefit from more co-ordinated, widespread and influential versions of attack.

Gafs lack of honesty when it comes to anti bernie and pro Hillary issues has honestly been depressing and eye opening.

Fanboyism exists in politics too.

 

[Kreed]

MSNBC's Joy Reid did a nice break down on why these statements from Bernie were a mistake in this youtube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8mFQYhgNbc

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

How many other presidential candidates have been arrested - protesting segregation?
Would you be far more impressed by someone that shoot a bunch of people - because in the past that was a major part of some peoples claim to the White House.
Should he hide his activities as a youth, if I had done the same as a 20 year old - I'd be proud and I'd be proud of serving people in Vermont for three decades as well.

Again, that doesn't win you any points. It's admirable but that was then and this is now. Being involved and in tune with the black community today is far more important and "impressive" then what happened in the past.

Edit: It's also extremely insulting that I should respect/give the benefit of the doubt to someone because they march with MLK.

 

[HariKari]

Again, that doesn't win you any points. It's admirable but that was then and this is now. Being involved and in tune with the black community today is far more important and "impressive" then what happened in the past.

Hillary is in tune with the black community today?

 

[royalan]

Hillary is in tune with the black community today?

A lot more than Bernie.

Hillary made the black community a core component of her campaign from day fucking 1. And she's winning our vote because of it.

 

[Daingurse]

Hillary is in tune with the black community today?

Have you seen the polls? She's obviously a hell of a lot more in-tune with the black electorate than Bernie. That's a simple fact.

 

[Draper]

A lot more than Bernie.

Hillary made the black community a core component of her campaign from day fucking 1. And she's winning our vote because of it.

I honestly don't know, how did she?

 

[noshten]

Again, that he's running for president doesn't make it special. Black people know civil rights heroes. White people, by and large, don't. I would suspect, personally, that this plays a huge role in why Bernie's civil rights past is resonating more with non-black people than it is black people themselves.

Nobody is holding it against him. Nobody is criticizing him for it. It's just not making our panties drop, as evidenced by his dismal polling. So it would be to his benefit to learn how to answer these questions and approach this subject in a more modern way.

I'm sure Bernie expected all the panties to drop as soon as he whispered sweet "MLK... March... Arrested... Wall St..."

Spoiler

/s

Again, that doesn't win you any points. It's admirable but that was then and this is now. Being involved and in tune with the black community today is far more important and "impressive" then what happened in the past.

Edit: It's also extremely insulting that I should respect/give the benefit of the doubt to someone because they march with MLK.

I said I would be proud if I had marched with MLK or got arrested for protesting segregation. How you feel about it is up to you - if you find my opinion insulting I'm sorry I offended you

 

[King Tubby]

Have you seen the polls? She's obviously a hell of a lot more in-tune with the black electorate than Bernie. That's a simple fact.

By this logic, Donald Trump is way more in-tune with the white electorate than either of the Democratic candidates. Is he also the best candidate to serve their interests?

 

[HariKari]

Have you seen the polls? She's obviously a hell of a lot more in-tune with the black electorate than Bernie. That's a simple fact.

Polling isn't a good indication of anything. Could just be name recognition. I'd like to hear specifics as to how Clinton is so much better than Bernie. Honestly.

 

[Daingurse]

By this logic, Donald Trump is way more in-tune with the white electorate than either of the Democratic candidates. Is he also the best candidate to serve their interests?

So you're saying black people are too stupid to vote for their own interests? Or they just don't "know" Bernie, and are uneducated? Because if so, I've heard all this shit before and it's tiring. It makes no difference how on-point Bernie is on policy, if he sucks at conveying his message. Bernie has failed utterly and completely at conveying his message to the black voters. Hillary put in the work, and focused her efforts on the right areas, and talking to the right community leaders to actually make an impact with black voters.

 

[King Tubby]

So you're saying black people are too stupid to vote for their own interests? Or they just don't "know" Bernie, and are uneducated? Because if so, I've heard all this shit before and it's tiring. It makes no difference how on-point Bernie is on policy, if he sucks at conveying his message. Bernie has failed utterly and completely at conveying his message to the black voters. Hillary put in the work, and focused her efforts on the right areas and messaging.

Are you saying that white people are too stupid to vote for their own interests? You pointed at the polls, and I gave you an example of why they are not the be-all and end-all. The fact that you leapt to this line of argument is telling.

It makes no difference how on-point Bernie is on policy, if he sucks at conveying his message. Bernie has failed utterly and completely at conveying his message to the black voters. Hillary put in the work, and focused her efforts on the right areas, and talking to the right community leaders to actually make an impact with black voters.

In other words, it's more important what the candidates are saying than what they intend to do. I see.

It would make it seem like he is more in tune with what the Republican white electorate wants to hear at least. You can't make it a direct comparison because their target base is already very different from the start.

I'm also making a bit of a leap here to the likely presidential matchup between Hillary and Trump. Even if Trump gets destroyed chances are very strong he will get the majority of the white vote.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

By this logic, Donald Trump is way more in-tune with the white electorate than either of the Democratic candidates.

It would make it seem like he is more in tune with what the Republican white electorate wants to hear at least. You can't make it a direct comparison because their target base is already very different from the start.

 

[Daingurse]

Are you saying that white people are too stupid to vote for their own interests? You pointed at the polls, and I gave you an example of why they are not the be-all and end-all. The fact that you leapt to this line of argument is telling.

Because I've heard it time and time again. I never said Hilary is the perfect candidate, but she IS in-tune with the black community, and it is very obvious.

it's more important what the candidates are saying than what they intend to do. I see.

Yeah, when you actually want to win the whole package matters.

 

[MIMIC]

Nobody is holding it against it him, but it's also not impressive. It means nothing to most black people and our struggles TODAY. It does not win you points, especially when it seems to be the only thing you can point to.

It means a great deal to me. It shows me that he's not just about talk and is willing to get down and dirty for actual change. He doesn't just latch-on to social movements when it's convenient. And that's more than I can say about Hillary.

 

[foxtrot3d]

Disclaimer: I am white and could be 100% off, but I tend to agree with UnemployedVillain more.

I just don't see it as him being condescending. He was addressing real inequalities that really exist. If someone talks about providing more welfare/social programs/etc., perhaps sometimes it is indeed condescension, but in Bernie's case it seems plainly obvious that he talks about addressing or fighting these inequalities. Now perhaps they are not the best solutions, and that can be debated, but if someone is taking all of his statements on bad faith, well, how is that productive?


Um... He didn't say it was your mother's fault? Where are you getting this? You can disagree with his conclusion that the lady wasn't racist, but that's a different thing. You seem to be assuming bad faith where there is none.

1. I never said Bernie was condescending or presenting himself as the white savior I merely stated that his phrasing and statements can lead people into perceiving that. I cannot read his mind so I cannot know how he feels about subjects in his mind, I cannot possibly know if he secretly perceives himself as a "white savior." I can only judge his statements and explain why some people find them problematic. It's the same reason people look down on his hand waving, "can I talk now?" interjections he made during the debate. Is Bernie Sanders a sexist asshole? Probably not, but he should recognize that telling a women to basically "hush" while putting his hands near her face doesn't exactly send a good message.

2. nib95 was essentially blaming my mother even going so far as to say that her being upset about the whole situation was a "disappointment." He basically doubled down on the exact point I was making in that post, that it is okay to assume black people are poor as long as it comes from a "good" heart.

 

[M0nochromatic]

I am concerned that, a day later, he wasn't able to identify the problem people had with what he said and you should be too.

It's hard to distinguish concern trolling, especially in these discussions. I'll gamble on your sincerity.

Optics and appearances are important(far more then they should be) in politics. I agree with you to an extent there. Anyone who's been paying attention should understand the intent and message behind his words, however. He could and should, work on being well spoken, but he's arguing about giving a shit about the less fortunate, those who are poor and suffer from racial discrimination. Optics don't matter half as much as genuine intent, and his track record speaks for that.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

I feel bad for Bernie in a way though

My Dad's older than Bernie, and roughly as liberal - still is really. He used so many outdated terms and usages of common words that I sorta absorbed a lot of them and used to speak like someone from a generation earlier at times.

One time in college, in the middle of a lab, the teacher walked up to a conversation I was having with a female student. He asked what we were discussing, and we were mostly shooting the shit, so I said "I'm just molesting her," in the formerly more common sense of bothering / irritating someone. The air sucked right out of the room and I instinctively cringed and stuttered, and unable to recover just blurted out, "damn my Dad and his archaic use of language." Went back to my seat feeling worse than one of those underwear dreams. Apologized to the girl and she never spoke to me again.

The teacher thought it was hilarious though

 

[royalan]

It means a great deal to me. It shows me that he's not just about talk and is willing to get down and dirty for actual change. He doesn't just latch-on to social movements when it's convenient. And that's more than I can say about Hillary.

Well I guess it hasn't been convenient for a good 40 years or so. Didn't seem to make black activists in his home state too happy.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ders-we-were-invisible-to-bernie-sanders.html

 

[excelsiorlef]

Hillary is in tune with the black community today?

She went and talked to them in South Carolina. Did Sanders?

 

[King Tubby]

She went and talked to them in South Carolina. Did Sanders?

Yes???

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

It's hard to distinguish concern trolling, especially in these discussions. I'll gamble on your sincerity.

Optics and appearances are important(far more then they should be) in politics. I agree with you to an extent there. Anyone who's been paying attention should understand the intent and message behind his words, however. He could and should, work on being well spoken, but he's arguing about giving a shit about the less fortunate, those who are poor and suffer from racial discrimination. Optics don't matter half as much as genuine intent, and his track record speaks for that.

Thing is, when you're trying to reach people who don't know about and may never look into your track record, which is what campaigning is to a large degree, you've got to know how to work people.

What a lot of people are saying and then having it handily dismissed as moronic is not that what Sanders was saying is wrong, but that he has trouble conveying it in a way that is understood unequivocally and that is an issue for him while campaigning.

 

[nib95]

Again, that doesn't win you any points. It's admirable but that was then and this is now. Being involved and in tune with the black community today is far more important and "impressive" then what happened in the past.

Edit: It's also extremely insulting that I should respect/give the benefit of the doubt to someone because they march with MLK.

Really? Being involved in potentially dangerous protests and civil rights movements, leading the University charge on such events, writing about them in party letters and uni papers, and even getting arrested for it, is less impressive than what is mostly lip service today, and what today essentially guarantees positive electoral results (from the relevant voter demographic) without any negative or dangerous repercussions?

I'd be surprised if any Democratic candidate didn't speak and act at length on the plight of certain Black communities today, especially during election seasons. So whilst I do agree with you on the fact that political stances today are more important, I do think past stances are still a very good show of commitment and moral standing, beyond political pandering and lip service. This goes to not just past actions to the benefit of minorities, but past stances on foreign policy, big business, healthcare, LGBT rights et all.

 

[royalan]

Thing is, when you're trying to reach people who don't know about and may never look into your track record, which is what campaigning is to a large degree, you've got to know how to work people.

What a lot of people are saying and then having it handily dismissed as moronic is not that what Sanders was saying is wrong, but that he has trouble conveying it in a way that is understood unequivocally and that is an issue for him while campaigning.

I'm going to take it a step further and say that I don't think he has much to convey at this point.

I mean, as idiotic as Don Lemon can be, he gave Bernie the perfect layup in the last debate. The perfect opportunity to go into detail about what his relationship is with the black community today.

What did we get? "I marched with King" and "I was arrested."

 

[NullPointer]

Optics and appearances are important(far more then they should be) in politics. I agree with you to an extent there. Anyone who's been paying attention should understand the intent and message behind his words, however. He could and should, work on being well spoken, but he's arguing about giving a shit about the less fortunate, those who are poor and suffer from racial discrimination. Optics don't matter half as much as genuine intent, and his track record speaks for that.

Well put.

And count me in with those who would like to know specifically what Hillary has supposed to have done, in terms of her record, her words, or her current platform, that make her a better candidate on racial issues.

I'm not saying she isn't, just that I honestly don't know what makes her stand apart here and that underlies her polling.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Yes???

I meant talk to not deliver a speech at. Clinton was all over the place meeting with community leaders and mothers who lost children to police violence. She was grassrooting.

Sanders also notoriously gave up on all the major southern black states.