Conference taveng::bagels

     Discussing the "rainbow" aspect of Jackson's campaign staff,
     Time said this week:  "....his four closest advisors are
     white, and three are Jewish.  They include Jackson's campaign
     manager, Gerald Austin;  his economics advisor, Carol
     O'Cleireacain;  his policy advisor, Mark Steitz;  and his
     all-purpose sounding board, Ann Lewis."  I assume his previous
     anti-Semitic remarks were insensitivity rather than hatred,
     otherwise I can't imagine what these people are doing there.

     I do know the story about Farrakhan, however.  In the early
     stages of the last campaign, before Jackson could get Secret
     Service protection, there were a number of death threats
     against both him and his family.  Farrakhan supplied them with
     bodyguards.  Jackson has denounced anti-Semitism, but not
     Farrakhan the person.  I think this is both loyalty (if
     someone had helped you and you disagreed with him, would you
     say "I disagree with those views." or would you say "Joe Blow
     is a louse."), and in line with the Christian tradition
     usually described as "hating the sin but not the sinner."
     Another example of the latter, I'm pretty sure, is the Pope's
     meeting with Waldheim.  In this regard, don't forget that Jackson
     is a Christian minister.

     About meeting with everybody under the sun -- this is an
     approximately verbatim quote:  "Not to talk to people who we
     disagree with is stupid."
                                                     
     Jackson is only the candidate least favorable to Israel if one
     believes that a continuation of the current situation is in 
     Israel's best interests.  What is Israeli society going to be
     like after this has gone on for, say, forty more years?
    

    Something tells me I should have used Joe Boblumsky.  Or is there
    a guy by that name also?

    I saw the New Smothers Brothers Show last night. Having seen my all-time
    favorite candidate once again, I now know my vote for President will 
    be Pat Paulsen! 
    
    BTW, the show is great entertainment. Check it out!
                                          
    				Russ
    				

    it's amazing  to me how anyone could support a j. jackson) ZxsL
    jews. he is not only a racist, lying, anti-semite, his politics
    and past statements leave one with a perception that he is sympathetic
    towards  marxist, and third world views. jacksons' views have not
    changed, he has gotten smarter. he hides his views with smooth rhetoric
    and cliches.      
    
    i personally think he is a clever an dangerous politician. his key
    foreign policy advisors come from the institute for foreign policy
    studies- a hard left activist organization, self described as "radical"
    
    there is no doubt that jackson, if he were white would have been
    exposed a long time ago. a true double standard has been set in
    place.      
    
    the problem as i see it, goes further than jackson. the democratic
    party and in particualar dukakis have acted in such a pussilanimous
    fashion in reacting to jackson. how can anyone vote for a democratic
    presidential nominee, when the party of the "people" allows a jackson
    to speel his garbage without even a rebuttal. when dukakis was asked
    if there were any differences between himself and jackson, he said
    that he saw no differences and that both men were seeking to accomplish
    the same goals.  but when it came to gephardt or the other 
    democratic contenders he always found something to criticize.
    
    dukakis may be pro-israel ( he did approve of the publicized
    letter to  shamir by the 30 senators, a total abonimation. jewish senators
    bending backwards to present themselves as objective legislators
    and at the same time distancing themselves from israel in the face
    of world criticism)at least that is the perception. but if he is
    allowed to accomplish his goals of cutting back defense and flirting
    with isolationism then how will he able to support israel at the
    same time he is pressing for his detached foreign policy. 
    

Mr./Ms. Magnes must be pretty upset with Jackson.  He/she actually put an
uppercase character in the first line of .6!

    
    
    
    	Easy now...
    
    

re:.7
    to mrs/mr ericg the english professor:
    
    it's very nice of you mr/mrs. professor to reply to the topic but
    since you have nothing else to think about besides my
    capital letters, maybey i can keep you busy by challenging your
    witty mind to point out that letter. i just know i couldn't have
    slipped.

    re .6
    > there is no doubt that jackson, if he were white would have been
    > exposed a long time ago. a true double standard has been set in
    > place.      
    
    This is a popular view today.  People of differing races and
    backgrounds criticize one another without ever thinking along the lines
    of racism, a double standard.  *I* criticize Reagan, not because he is
    white, but because of some of his policies. *I* criticize Koch because
    I think that he is too sensational. The fact that Koch is Jewish never
    enters my minds when I'm "exposing" him. When someone says that Jackson
    would not have gotten this far were he white, I always think "why are
    you thinking along racial lines? why are *you* involving race in the
    game? is it that you are insecure of something?"
    
    _karen

    i almost to defend myself, because i have nothing to defendZc}s^
    L
    myself from. the issue of race is only important in so much as the
    democratic party specifically dukakis, and even the press  have
    failed to criticise jackson on the issues. they themselves have
    stated that they do not want to appear racist and therefore refrain
    from truly criticising jacksons' far left views. dukakis as true
    politician knows that to alienate the black community would mean
    certain defeat for campaign. 
    
    that is why i say if jackson, if he were white, would not of stood
    a chance. just as lyndon larouche was in all practical terms, expelled
    from the democratic party so would jackson had he been white.
    
    my feelings for jackson have nothing to do with race. if he were
    blue,purple or orange and said and done what he has done do you
    think i would feel any better about him.
    
    if the democratic or republican party were to nominate an alan keyes,
    or a thomas sowell, two great thinkers in my opinion, they would
    have my vote tomorrow. so lets' leave the race issue aside, it serves
    no purpose.

re: .10 and .11

	A quick case in point:

		Bruce Babbitt. His views are no more radical than Jackson's, yet
		he is out of it. Same thing for Pete duPont on the GOP side. or
		Al Haig, or Jack Kemp, for that matter.

	Q.E.D.: If Jesse were white, he would not be in the race.

P.S. It is not Jackson's color I object to, either - it's his politics. I'd
clearly prefer Barbara Jordan, Julian Bond or even the late Harold Washington to
Jesse.

    .12
    
    My guess is that is what will eventually happen. Assuming that the
    DUKE gets the nomination we may well see a black (other than Jesse)
    as his running mate. One of the most learned and well respected
    would be Barbara Jordan.

    Heard last night on CNN, and also similarly on other networks:
    
    "This campaign came down to a racial issue for the Jews"
    
    This was implying that Jackson was not getting votes from Jews because
    he was black. 
    
    Another case of clear, concise, accurate reporting by news people
    who understand all the issues!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I am under the impression that Barbara Jordan has health problems
    of some sort that would preclude her running for office;  I think
    that was why she retired from public office in the first place.
    

    Re: .12                                   
    
    I think making the assumption that:
    
       candidates are usually selected purely as a function of their views
       less radical candidates than Jesse have dropped out 
                               
       q.e.d Jackson is still a viable candidate only because he is
       black 
    
    is incorrect.  Other factors matter -- television time to become
    known to the voters (for which you need either money or publicity
    value like Jackson's), voters' perception of character, and so forth.
    Whatever else you can say about Jackson, you have only to watch
    peoples' reactions when he speaks to see that he has an ability
    to engage people that the other candidates lack.  he also displayed
    a really amazing amount of self-control under pressure in New York
    -- no whining a la Hart.
                              

reply to: < Note 443.15 by CIRCUS::KOLLING "Karen, Sweetie, Holly; in Calif." >


>    I am under the impression that Barbara Jordan has health problems
>    of some sort that would preclude her running for office;  I think
>    that was why she retired from public office in the first place.
    
	I think that that's right.  I saw an interview with her
	a few weeks ago.  She was sitting in a wheelchair, and at least
	part of her seemed paralyzed.  She has also gained a great deal
	of weight since I met her in the '60s.

	That's too bad.  This is one special lady.

/don feinberg

    .15 & .17
    
    I'm not saying that it has to be Barbara Jordan but if you are going
    to pick a candidate it should be more like her as opposed to Jesse.
    
    A person like Henry Cisneros (the current mayor of San Antonio ...
    and also a personal friend) also seems like a good bet.
    
    But again not Jesse.

    RE: Henry Cisneros -- an excellent leader, and an excellent human
    being.  Perhaps not the ideal complement to Gov. Dukakis.  Mr. Cisneros
    would provide the Geographic and Ethnic balance. Yet the ticket would
    still lack a more Conservative touch and a "Foreign Affairs" maven. 
    Perhaps the ticket, and the country, would be better served by a
    Southern / Southwestern / Western middle-of-the-road Senator.
    
    					Regards, Michael

    .19
    
    In the normal case I would have to agree but the one thing that
    Jesse Jackson has shown is that this years election may have a stronger
    bias to ethnic balance than to the traditional reasons for picking
    a balanced ticket.
    
    Remember the Democrats want to win the election and Jesse has an
    enormous amount of support as can be seen by the raw numbers. The
    supporters of Jackson need to support the candidate of the party
    and any move away from this will leave the Democrats looking to
    first consolidate this support and then go after Bush.
    
    By the way what will the Republicans do for VP, they need the Jackson
    supporters also ?
    

    Hello again...
    
    Yes, the primary is over but the wounds in NYC are still raw. So rather
    than gloss over what has happened I would like to get your opinons. (I
    don't think that I should start another topic since this topic seems to
    be in the same vein.)  Do you think that there is any truth to the
    article I've included? What do you think? 
    
    _karen    
        
From the Village Voice, April 19, 1988.
Copied without permission.


                           If Not Now, When?
                   Jackson's Jewish Problems - and Ours

by D.D. Guttenplan

Why is the NY primary different from any other primary? Remember
"Hymietown"? Remember Walter Mondale and Gary Hart elbowing each other
over who'd move the US embassy to Jerusalem first? Remember George
McGovern's fateful brush with the Jewish dietary laws? 

....

Judging from several dozen interviews conducted over the last two
weeks, the media depiction of Jews as suspicious of, and even hostile
to, Jackson's candidacy is not entirely misleading.  The questions are
basic: "Hymietown," Farrakhan, Israel and the Palestinians,
anti-Semitism.  The answers were knotted and passionate and full of
fear.  Time and again I was told "Hymietown didn't mean anything.
After all, how many Jews do you know who never use the  word
schvartze? The Farrakhan thing was much more important." 

At a Democracy Project forum last week, Daily News columnist Bob 
Herbert asked Jackson about his connection with the man many Jews see 
as the embodiment of black anti-Semitism. "None," he replied.  "There 
is no relationship." The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, which 
monitors anti-Jewish extremism, agrees. "We're not aware of any 
contacts" between Jackson and Farrakhan, the ADL's Allan Schwarz told 
the Voice. "He apologized publicly," says Henry Siegman of the 
American Jewish Congress. "He's severed his relationship with 
Farrakhan - no one can accuse him of anti-Semitism today."

Ed Koch is not the only prominent Jew to do exactly that. New Republic
editor Martin Peretz once called Jackson, "a certified bigot... not
simply a rogue, but an anti-Semite," One reason for such charges was
hinted at by Art D'Lugoff, owner of the Village Gate, who said that
he's voting for Jackson.  "It's deliberate! It's done by right-wingers
because they have no other way to justify their policies. These people
think that love for Israel is the same as love for Shamir." 

It is true that the most vocal Jewish criticism of Jackson since 1984 
has come from ideologues like Norman Podhoretz, who oppose not only 
the man but the ideas and interests he represents.  Ever since the Six 
Day War and the ascension of the Likud party, a sizable number of 
American Jews have used Israel to validate their own conservatism - 
and to discipline critics of U.S. intervention in the Third World.  
"They wouldn't be satisfied," said one Jackson supporter, "if he drove 
a stake through Farrakhan's heart.  Under a full moon."

...

... "People on the Upper West Side would vote for Jackson for senator 
or congressman, but not for president. There is a hesitancy to entrust 
the power to make decisions and influence policy on such a broad 
scale." I heard variations on this comment throughout the week, and 
while some of those questioned explained themselves in terms of 
Jackson's scant executive experience, the B'nai Jeshurun version 
seemed the most candid about the roots of this reluctance.  Is the 
idea of a black man in a position of power over their lives simply too 
much for many liberals - Jews and Christians alike - to 
accept?

For some Jews, this resistance generates guilt; for others resentment. 
I often heard the civil rights movement described as a halcyon period of 
black-Jewish cooperation.  One woman came close to tears: "How can 
they call us racist, just because we're not for Jackson? After all we 
did for them in the '60s." As David Dubro noted, "Jackson has come to 
symbolize a rift between blacks and Jews" - one that's been there a 
long time. 

According to Rabbi David Saperstein, Jackson deserves some of his 
symbolic baggage.  But the media also deserve their share of the blame. 
 "Jackson's actions over the last four years reflect a very consistent 
effort to reach out to the Jewish community," says Saperstein, 
director of the Religious Action Center of the Union of American 
Hebrew Congregations. "But most Jews don't know about it, because the 
press doesn't report it."

Jackson advisor Ann Lewis, the Democratic National Committee's former 
political director and one of his many links to the Jewish community, 
find this especially frustrating.  "When the Nazis marched in Skokie," 
she said, "Jackson went to the synagogue - and that was in '79, before 
he was a candidate for anything. When Reagan went to Bitburg, Jackson 
visited Strutof [a concentration camp].  He's had meetings with the 
Soviet Jewish activists, visited synagogues - all kinds of things 
you'll never read about in the papers."

Jewish liberals have little to fear from a Jackson presidency - on 
Israel or anything else.  "His position on what should be done in the 
Middle East is exactly the same as our own," says David Coyne, 
executive director of New Jewish Agenda.  "He's been tremendously 
responsible and helpful on this issue."

According to Amsterdam News publisher Wilbert Tatum, who has received 
numerous awards from Jewish groups for his consistent support for 
Israel - and whose position is probably to the right of Coyne's - the 
reassurance some Jews seek from Jackson has been there all along. But 
Tatum says that those who want more explicit gesture are never going 
to be satisfied: "I don't think Jesse has that to give anymore.  Jesse 
has been sorely wounded, because the fact that he has apologized - 
done penance - and the reaction from those who are well known in the 
Jewish community was, "We do not believe you."

Still, if Jackson does have his much-discussed summit with Jewish 
leaders, Tatum has some advice for both sides. "Where is it written 
that when a person acknowledges a mistake, we have the right to ignore 
that? By right, I ought to be afraid to walk the streets of New York 
city where any white person resides after Howard Beach.  But I can't 
live that way.  We can't let fear keep us apart; we must come together 
in hope.  And that's what Jesse should tell them."
    

    As for Barbara Jordan for VP, she's is in a wheelchair now and it
    seems as though she is partially paralyzed.  I don't think that
    the American people will vote for someone who is "apparently" in
    ill health/handicapped.  Sad. Also, she is as passionate as Dukakis.
    
    _karen

    	I've been thinking about the Black/Jewish issue that surfaced
    in New York for a while now, and this topic seems to be the best
    place to put forward my thoughts and get other opinions.
    
    	I think the article quoted in 443.21 is based on a real sentiment,
    but it misses the point.  It is saying, Jesse Jackson feels he has
    apologized and groveled enough to make up for his supposed
    anti-Semitism--when is the man going to finally get credit for that?
   
        First, let me make two observations.  Note that I dispense with the
    terms "racist" and "anti-Semitic" since they are too loaded to be
    useful.  "Anti-Black" and "anti-Jewish" are clumsy constructions,
    but they're the best alternatives I can come up with.
    
    1.  Black people feel that *all* non-Black people in our society have
    some degree of anti-Black attitude.  Black people will admire and
    encourage non-Black people who attempt to minimize that anti-Black
    attitude, but Black people reserve to themselves the right to make the
    final judgment of whether any specific non-Black person has really
    done enough to understand Black people. 

    2.  Jews feel that *all* non-Jews in our society have some degree of
    anti-Jewish attitude.  Jews will admire and encourage non-Jews who
    attempt to minimize that anti-Jewish attitude, but Jews reserve to
    themselves the right to make the final judgment of whether any
    specific non-Jew has really done enough to understand Jews. 

    I think each observation is a fair representation of how each group
    sees itself with regard to all others.  Now, all I did to change the
    first observation to the second was to substitute "Jew[ish]" for "Black
    people."  My point, obviously, is that Jews and Black people have
    very similar attitudes toward outside groups.  I believe that is
    why Jews have traditionally been the strongest non-Black group in
    support of civil rights.  

    	The reason I think the article misses the point is simply that
    it is not in Jesse Jackson's power to decide whether he has "done
    enough" to make up for any real or imagined anti-Jewish actions
    in the past.  It is up to the Jews, individually and as a group,
    to make that decision.  Clearly some have; we keep hearing about
    how many of his top advisors are Jews.  Just as clearly, many more
    have not.  In any case, it is their decision to make, not Jackson's,
    and not his non-Jewish defenders in this conference, in the Village
    Voice, or elsewhere.
    
    	Jackson and his supporters will have to come to terms with that.
    If Blacks insist that they reserve the right to decide who is
    anti-Black and who is not, Jews must have the same parallel right.

    	(Don't get me wrong:  What Ed Koch did went far beyond what I'm 
    discussing here.  He wasn't acting as a Jew, he was acting as an
    opportunistic anti-Black.  Ugh.)
    
    	The bottom line is that *both* groups have work to do to increase
    understanding and trust.  *Both* need to look inward to realize how
    similar their positions are.  Then, *both* need to figure out how to
    cooperate for the greatest good.
    
    			David

    re .23
    
    David, 
    
    I agree with your assessments. Plus, I don't think that Jackson should
    apologize and grovel any more than he already has, assuming that he has
    apologized and grovelled. That is not to say that he has done enough.
    Supposedly time heals all wounds, so with time _maybe_ the perception
    will be that he has done enough, whatever is the definition of
    "enough." 
    
    My immediate concern is the problem all this has created for Jewish
    Black relations.  I'm convinced that it is not primarily a New York
    problem because I have spoken to many Blacks in Boston  who were quite
    upset with everything that has happened over the last few days. The
    tension between the two "oppressed" groups is not a new development.
    However, I am very hurt because this Koch-Jackson/Jewish-Black episode
    has pushed the day of reconciliation even farther back. Each night I
    watched the news there was a clipping of a Black person arguing with a
    Jewish person, ON THE STREETS, about Jackson and Koch. One calling the
    other racist, the other calling one anti-Semite. It was sickening! 
        
    I am at a total loss since I have little clue as to what can possibly
    bridge the gap. Like you said, we both need to look deep into our self,
    but how can we when there is so much muck around? I understand that
    Koch was not speaking on the behalf of Jews. But try telling that to
    the man in the street. 
    
    On a more optimistic side, maybe all this will force both sides to
    think about the situation.  Maybe now Jewish and Black leaders will
    start to address the problem directly. There is hope. At least you
    and I are thinking about it. :-) 
    
                               			Karen

    Karen
    
    Let me try another perspective.
    
    If you were to see a picture of a Jewish leader (insert your own
    name) embracing the Ku Klux Klan or President Botha of South Africa,
    what would your reaction be?
    
    My issue with Jackson is not that he is Anti-Semitic (he may or
    may not be). My problem with him is that given the opportunity four
    years ago to denounce Anti-Semitism (in the form of denouncing
    Farakhan for his obviously racist comments), he refused. This, to
    my way of thinking, is the greatest lack of sensitivity I can remember
    from a national politician (I'm sure you can find other examples).
    
    
    In addition, Jackson's famous embrace of Yassir Arafat as "a great
    freedom fighter", and his contact with Syria's Hassan and Libya's
    Kadahfy, are totally abhorrent to most Jews. This is the real issue
    at hand for me. Should I vote or support a man who does not represent
    my political point of view, or understand my sensitivities.
    
    This is not a Black vs. Jew issue. It is a human issue. I still
    would not vote for Jackson if he were white because of the things
    he did. In fact, if Jackson were white, and the same issues had
    surfaced, it would not be news. It would be just another white guy
    who lost the election (this was not meant to be a rascist statement,
    only a condemnation of the news media and there penchant for making
    news).
    
    Please try to understand my points here. I did not support Jackson
    just because he is black. I couldn't support him because of his previous
    activities. I am sure there are some people who could not vote for
    him due to race, but I think the majority of Jews did not vote for him due
    to convictions they feel he does not share.
    
    Granted, there are strains in Black-Jewish relations in this country.
    Those strains, in my opinion come from each group expecting the other
    group to support their points of view. As we know, that does not
    always happen. Many Blacks are angry at Jews for not supporting
    Jackson, just as many Jews are angry at Blacks for their lack of
    full support of Israel. Nevertheless, all in all, I think the
    Black-Jewish problem is blown way out of proportion. People are
    people, and we all are trying to get along. I think this is just
    one more tiff in the relationship, among many before and more to
    follow. This is a fact of life.
    
    Much understanding may be lacking on both sides. It is our jobs
    to try to see both sides of an argument so that we can understand
    how not to have such basic conflicts in the future.
    
    I hope you understood the points I was trying to make. I would be
    happy to vote for a Black person, just not Jackson.

    .25> If you were to see a picture of a Jewish leader embracing the
    >Ku Klux Klan or President Botha of South Africa, what would your
    >reaction be?.... given the opportunity four years ago to denounce
    >Anti-Semitism (in the form of denouncing Farrakhan for his obviously
    >racist comments) [Jackson] refused.
     
    Unfortunately, some of the black/Jewish friction stems from Israel's
    support for the South African government, and AIPAC's alliances
    with U.S. senators who are racist.
    
    Jackson has denounced Anti-Semitism and he has denounced anti-semitic
    statements by others.  He has also severed all ties with Farrakhan,
    both political and personal.  He does not denounce human beings;
    I discussed why denouncing humans beings is considered unChristian
    in another note.
                                
    

    Karen K.
    
    You missed my entire point. Try to back away for a minute from your
    point of view, and look at mine. Impressions are what people deal with.
    If you give me the impression that you are against me, then I must
    assume you are. Don't talk about "Christian Ethics". That is
    irrelevant. Either you against racists or not. Jackson has no problem
    with attacks on specific people when it suits him (like certain
    political leaders, and rascists in the KKK, etc.). This seems to
    be a true double standard. 
    
    And Please, Please, Please, take the time to study your facts before
    you make untrue and blatantly politically one-sided statements. If
    Blacks are so concerned about states supporting South Africa, why
    are they not boycotting all goods from black nations in Africa who
    trade with S.A.? If you took the time to look at the record, instead
    of believing all the propaganda in the media, you would find that
    the amount of trade that Israel does with S.A. is less than most
    black nations in Africa, let alone a smidgen compared to Japan,
    Britain, France, and other western countries.
    
    Remember, check the facts before you comment!!!!!!!
    
    Jack

	But, tell me, what has Jackson ever done to convince *anyone* that
	he could be President? 

	Other than be outspoken, that is. When the other candidates are
	fuzzy (e.g. Dukakis), they at least have a record to fall back on.
	And please don't say Operation PUSH...it's supposed to be an
	organizational disaster.

	or, put another way, "I'm a tree shaker, not a jelly maker".

	Personally, I could live without *another* charismatic figure in the 
	White House who can't govern.

also: how come Cisneros and Toney Anaya are not getting any press as VP 
contenders - they certainly got plenty last go-round. Also, please note that
William Gray is supposedly on the Duke's short list for veep.

Finally - the Phoenix today has an article touting Glenn for VP - what a 
concept! A conservative Rustbelt candidate with foreign policy experience!
Why has noone else suggested it?

	eric

    Jackson/Dukakis? Dukakis/Jackson?  Political suicide for the 
    democrats.  Not one hour of experience at the Federal level between
    them.  The Republicans would eat 'em up on that one issue alone.

    re: -1
    
    And what experience did the straightman to a chimpanzee have?
    
    David

    re .30
    
    I don't get it... 

    re: .31
    
    The chimpanzee reference was to our illustrious leader, Ronald Reagan.
    Surely you must have known about his acting (that's what they call
    it) in the Bedtime for Bonzo movies?
    
    David 

re: < Note 443.30 by FSLENG::CHERSON "break down the walls" >
>    
>    And what experience did the straightman to a chimpanzee have?

	On paper, Reagan/Bush had:

		Reagan - governor of California
	
		Bush - ambassador to UN
		       head of CIA
		       stuff before that, I think, but I forget

	On paper, Duke/Jackson is Bush-league...

we may not like Reagan/Bush, but they had the resumes...

eric

    re:-1
    
    Dukakis has already had two terms as governor of Massachusetts,
    plus he spent his "off-term" teaching at the Kennedy school.  What
    else should he have to do?  His knack is administration, something
    that ronnie raygun has lacked from birth.  Re:Jackson, I don't think
    that this combination would work for reasons other than experience.
    
    I think you're overestimating the American people on this experience
    issue.
    
    David

    re: -1
    
    I'm not talking about the American people; I'm talking about the
    Republican party and professional campaign techniques.  Duke-Jackson
    in any combination would never get out of the starting gate.

    re:-1
    
    Then you are underestimating Dukakis and the Democrats.  If they're
    at all interested in getting back the white house then they should
    be doing their homework now.
    
    David

    .28 nailed it. Much of the earlier discussion was posed as
    Black-vs-Jewish, with little discussion of Jackson's actual
    credentials. (There was one note that quoted him on various and
    sundry friends and acquaintances...)
    
    Jackson has no governmental experience, and little if any
    administrative experience (I don't know how well or poorly PUSH
    is administered). Since '84, he has become a more polished speaker,
    in the sense of avoiding the more obvious gaffes. That's not
    necessarily an indication of real knowledge of the issues.
    
    Jackson scares me for a number of reasons, the least of them being
    his race. After the role of fundamentalist religious leaders (?)
    in our society during the past 8 years, I'm almost as reluctant
    to support Jackson as I would be to support Pat Robertson. Jimmy
    Carter flunked in his relations with the Legislative branch. I can't
    imagine Jackson being an improvement.
    
    Is Jackson prepared to deal with foreign policy issues? Good will
    tours and photo opportunities will not assure an effective or secure
    foreign policy. The Soviets would probably eat him for breakfast,
    lunch and dinner. (I'll make a few more friends here: Jack Kennedy
    almost started World War III/Last because- in my opinion- he led
    the Soviets to believe he was weak and ineffectual, and they misjudged
    how he would HAVE to react to missiles in Cuba.)
    
    Jackson seems to reduce every social issue to the same race and
    poverty issue. I can easily see him launching all manner of programs
    to rectify every vestige of racism, imagined or real, and generating
    antagonisms on the grand scale. Instead of massive deficits for
    defense (which I do not favor), we will pile them up for social
    welfare programs. I'm not against social welfare, but if throwing
    money at problems could solve them, most of them would be gone by
    now. People are ornery, and find the most imaginative ways to resist
    change.
    
    In short, regardless of race, I don't find Jackson qualified. I
    do believe the media have handled him with kid gloves to avoid charges
    of racism. His associations with Arafat, Kaddafi and the like are
    inexcusable. I'm not saying they aren't real, aren't to be reckoned
    with, aren't even to be negotiated with, but they surely aren't
    to be embraced. They haven't earned the privilege.
    
    - Richard