Why do you define him by the worst things he's done, and not by the best, or by what he's done since Brawley? Shouldn't it at least be a balance of good and bad, like everyone? Why is he deluded to think Sharpton got wiser and mellowed with age? Isn't that what we all wish to do?
Tawana Brawley is a part of Sharpton's past and one cannot deny this...any TV bio of him will include the Tawana Brawley scandal. The media covered that turbulence like it was the second coming, primarily because Sharpton had made a number of enemies with his civil rights movement. To just concentrate on the good would not be good reporting of this man. (Sharpton wasn't as quiet as Martin Luther King or Jesse Jackson.) As I pointed out, Al Sharpton has achieved quite a feat, becoming an anchor on his own show on MSNBC. Don Imus called African American basket players “Nappy-Headed Hos." Al Sharpton took up the cause and got that racist pr*ick fired. Sharpton has dared to trod where others today will not.
Sharpton is one of those who has changed with time (he's more moderate) and not everyone is so capable, and he still has his share of enemies. Sharpton has not always been my cup of tea as I often though he was too overbold, but when people like him change, it is noticed by many, including me. I frequently watch his program which is a part of the daily evening lineup of Liberal talk shows with Chris Matthews, Chris Hays, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell. My, these people are simply superb!