Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Julian Bond Sells Out Democratic Process...for what, exactly?


NAACP gets involved

Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP, has written a letter to Howard Dean to express "great concern at the prospect that million of voters in Michigan and Florida could ultimately have their votes completely discounted."

If you want to read the letter in its entirety, go here

Rev. Al Sharpton is all over this. He said, last night on MSNBC, and this morning on Tom Joyner, that this letter from Bond was, ' PoliTRICKS' of the highest order. That this was akin to being in the 3rd quarter of a game, and then deciding to change the rules of the game.

Roland Martin (, WVON-AM) said this morning on his radio show that he had been in contact with several NAACP Board members, and the NAACP Board had NOT approved of this letter. Bond sent it without putting it before the Board.

Let's make this clear - Julian Bond has sold out to the Clintons.

There is no way, that the contests in Michigan or Florida could remotely be considered fair, plausible, or should be counted in anyway.

IF you'd like to drop a line to the NAACP, here you go:
NAACP National Headquarters
4805 Mt. Hope Drive
Baltimore MD 21215

Toll Free: (877) NAACP-98
Local: (410) 580-5777


For those of you who thought the original letter was a hoax:

Found this at Roland Martin's Blog

From: "Julian Bond"
Subj: FW:
Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:24 pm
Size: 5K
To: "'Roland Martin'"

When these rules were set it was suspected at the time that they would be discriminatory for states with large African American populations. It seemed a harsh rule to disenfranchise millions of our voters just to appease the thousands of white voters in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Party rules never stated that candidateshad to take their names off of the ballot as was the case in Michigan. This was something that the Iowa and New Hampshire state parties imposed on the candidates in a bidding war to show their allegiance to the first-in the-nation"white" primaries.

Both Iowa and New Hampshire strongly OPPOSED the addition of South Carolina and Nevada as early primary states. They fought theBlack and Hispanic Caucus tooth and nail to stop this addition ofstates with Black and Brown populations having a greater say in the nomination process. They lost and in retaliation made the candidates sign a pledge to them - not the DNC - to not campaign there and not have their names on the ballot. Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinichand Chris Dodd refused to sign this pledge and left their names on the ballot. Clinton did not go into Florida until after the polls closed keeping her pledge.

The Obama campaign miscalculated on this issue and should have stood with Michigan and Florida given their strong African American populations. Had Obama won these states I am sure many people would be supporting this change in the rules.

Julian Bond


If you'd like to contact Howard Dean at the DNC:

Mailing Address:
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003

Main Phone Number:


wanda loves... said...

I saw Al Sharpton speaking with Chris Matthews yesterday about this also.

You know, some of these "black leaders" really just amaze me. They go around for decades selling the idea that black people can't make it and that we are forever oppressed and when a black guy actually has a rel shot at the Presidency of the United States, they side with the establishment.

The only thing that is great about that is if Obama wins, they may be voted out of office during the next election cycle.

wanda loves... said...

And did you see the Kwesi Mfume interview on MSNBC? I thought he was really playing ditzy when Keith Olbermann was interviewing him.

Anonymous said...

I read the letter and I don't believe that Julian Bond has "sold out to the Clintons". His letter ask for a "resolution" to the problem. He didn't say the "resolution" should be to let Hillary Clinton have the votes in Michigan and Florida. Let's wait and see before we lable Julian Bond a "sellout".

Anonymous said...

I do not have a problem with having a caucus as some have proposed. Of course Hillary said "only activists" bother to particpate in those.

Great way to insult your own party members isn't it?

Anonymous said...

Was that a real letter? It's full of misspelled words!

the poet Shazza said...

What's interesting about the Blog posting is that no where in it did he/she ask the question, "HOW DO THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA FEEL ABOUT NOT HAVING A SAY IN THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS TO CHOOSE A PRESIDENT?"

No where in the Press or News or in the open dialogue of Democracy is there conversation and or interviews from the people of the two states about their NO COUNT votes.

In support Julian Bond, regardless of who his political support will be extended to, the issue isn't about him, its about allowing ALL AMERICANS the right to participate in the process.

You have people at the top (HOWARD DEAN) who are responsible for making sure things run right. So the people of both states decided to change their causcus dates and the Democratic Party Objected. The fact that they were limited and denied a voice is no different than when WHITES used trickey to prevent Blacks from voting. Ultimately when you look at the numbers, the overall numbers for Hillary and Obama still come out the same. So What's The Big Deal. Count the Votes and Be Done With It.

Bottom Line,the way the votes are going on the Democratic side, those vote will have to be counted. It was assumed that by doing what they did to Florida and Michigan, the democratic Party assumed it would not matter BUT GUESS WHAT? It did and now EXTRA MONEY will have to be spent to either recound or re-run the caucus, some people will have to set aside EGOS and eat Crow, Obamaholics will be pissed, Hillaryites will still be red in the face BUT every vote will be counted as it SHOULD.

HIGH FIVE for Julian Bond for taking the first step and speaking up for PEOPLES RIGHTS. He's done it since the 60's and we all should be Blessed he is still in his RIGHT MIND to be able to do it in 2008.

Anonymous said...

Check out Professor Ifill's take on this issue at I agree with the anonymous comment @ 10:59 a.m. that we not assume his call for "resolution" is veiled support for a candidate. I don't think it is. His request falls well within the bounds of acceptable voting rights advocacy IMO.

I blame the transcriptionist for those typos.

-- Denise

Brian said...



The time to ask that question is immediately after the delegates were stripped.... Not NOW all of a sudden when Obama is winning.

There was a negotiation period for which the Florida Democratic leadership failed to compromise or change their schedule. The rules are clear and were clear from the beginning.

You are now saying that delegates should be awarded retroactively in States that were which Obama WAS NOT ON THE BALLOT in Michigan... in States where the candidates had agreed not to compete in? That is a travesty.

You can't change the rules after the game.


Julian Bond just lost what little respect I had left for him. He's now bankrupt in that department, along with most of the rest of the Black elite.

Now that Obama is winning, all of a sudden they are concerned. Why didn't they say anything before if they were so concerned? Now they are using the cover of "voting rights". It's so disgustingly deceitful.

The Black political and Civil Rights elite are scared to death about losing their influence, and losing access to corrupt lobbying money. They might have trouble lining their own pockets.

They are looking at the prospect of actually attempting to get something done about the problems for which many of them were sent to Washington to solve decades ago.
Instead of working towards real solutions, they have used their positions to get rich and to profile for the cameras. With a permanent Black underclass, which they (the CBC and Civil Rights Incorporated) had a part in creating and maintaining for their own survival, they have been able to become powerful over the years.

They are afraid of losing their meal tickets.

This is why they are fighting for Hillary so hard... so that the status quo can somehow be maintained....and their positions within Civil Rights Incorporated can be protected.

If they try to retroactively award delegates.. (and in at least one State Obama was not even on the ballot)... there will be a revolt like no other. First of all... it won't work, considering that the candidates did not compete in those States, and Obama was not even on the ballot in one (from what I understand).

A first year law student would be able to take that to the State Court...and then to Federal Court if necessary to stop that nonsense in its tracks. I can't imagine a judge not ordering an injunction to stop that foolishness. I'm waiting for Hillary to try to pull this one.

the poet Shazza said...

To The Angry Independent,

I guess you skimmed and not read my posting, what I detailed was the following:

1. The public never hear anything from the people of Michigan and Florida in regards to their dicipline and no vote status, their opinions or emotions. There must have been some reaction BECAUSE people still voted. Even if their votes were not to be counted OFFICIALLY.

2. The punishment does not fit the crime. You can not deny people the right to vote. Its a constitutional right (No Taxation without Representation

3. The only reason why the NDC did not take their decision seriously was because they assumed that the vote would not end up a tie in the end

4. I never proposed a retroactive count I stated that to make what had occured RIGHT, the NDC will possibly have to spend MONEY to re-run the caucus in order to balance out the vote of the NATION.

5. Julian Bond had a right to Question the situation PRIOR to the end of the primaries BEFORE it becomes a problem -- which Both Sides agree (both Obama and Clinton camps).

Constructive Feedback said...

Gee - Julian Bond is a real tiger on this one. :-/

He is planning to use the full force and authority of the NAACP to insure that "all of the vote of Black people" be counted. :-/

If I were Howard Dean I sure would fear the wrath of the NAACP.

RhondaCoca said...

Oh the NAACP...what does that stand for again hmmm...oh yea the National Association for the Advancement of Clinton People. Yea whats wrong with that? They're doing their job.

RhondaCoca said...

The problem with this is, if you believed so strongly that minority voters would be disenfranchised then you should have stepped up way, way before this, Mr. Bond. It is like when those lawsuits were filed in Nevada. They knew about it. They should have said something long before. But of course, when Obama got the endorsement from that big union, it was a big deal. Of course, when Obama is winning big, its a big deal. In addition, I was shocked to hear that Julian Bond took it up on himself with out the approval of many in the NAACP to this (I believe I have been hearing this). As Sharpton said, this is "politricks"

P.S. Yes, Wanda I saw Kwesi Mfume calling Barack Obama, Oback Barama as if his own name is easier to pronounce.

RhondaCoca said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

One of my buddy's recently got into some trouble at a bar and the short story is he was arrested on assault charges which are ridiculous we were there and watched as a random guy came up to him punched him in the face and began repeatedly beating him. He stood up to defend himself and in the crossfire the wasted dude fell and banged his head on the kerb. The cops show up and don't want to hear us and arrest him.
It all got cleared up in the end but had that have gone to court and my friend had to have paid court bonds could he have claimed them back or even sued the police force for wrongful arrest? Also where would be the best place for getting bonded?