updated below
Sen. Harry Reid made a ridiculously embarrassing statement about Barack Obama. He apologized. Pres. Obama accepted. End of story? Hardly. Because everyone must get their scalp. In fact, even using the phrase with the word “scalp” in it, I’m likely to get hate mail. But one ray of light, the Congressional Black Caucus backs Reid. Too bad Trent Lott didn’t have such support. After all, it’s not like Harry Reid channeled George “macaca” Allen.
UPDATE INSERT… Josh Marshall is making an exercised defense of what’s different between Reid and Lott’s statements. Yes, we all jumped on Lott, but that was because he was vulnerable, as his statement simply reinforced GOP’s whiteness. Listening to Lott’s tribute to Thurmond could just as easily have been interpreted as Lott saying something nice about the old man, even if it was politically tone deaf. If Lott had a Republican Congressional Black Caucus to get his back things might have turned out very differently. Marshall’s overtly partisan opining is no doubt appreciated, but reality lies elsewhere.
The Reid revelation coming just a week after Brit Hume’s Tiger bomb. You remember, Hume said Tiger should switch to Christianity, because he wasn’t certain Buddhism offered a real path towards redemption. People, especially on the left, went berserk.
There is no law against saying something stupid. Thank goodness or most of us who talk and write for a living would be in jail. The punishment from there is what the American people can stand, except when advertisers get targeted for what pundits say, as Glenn Beck found out, even if his show remains on the air. The campaign against Beck heart felt and targeted, but in the end didn’t work.
Taking out people who say impolitic things is now an American sport.
Something tells me Hume’s comment didn’t hurt him with Fox’s viewership, which is why he felt safe to say what he did. Doesn’t that count? Being on a network and actually talking to your audience.
This rush, along with the vitriol of the attacks, to take down someone because he or she says something impolitic, embarrassing or worse is starting to impinge on everyone’s free speech. I say apply the Jon Stewart rule. Instead of dissecting someone’s gaffe in self-righteous indignation simply make fun of it. It’s the best teacher.
The politics of petty just makes people sound petulant, but also decidedly un-American, because nothing is more foundational to our democratic republic than free speech.
But now we have the likes of Liz Cheney, with her back and forth with George Will on “This Week” yesterday making the rounds. Cheney leading the Republican machine calling for Reid’s resignation. So much for supporting freedom and liberty, which for Republicans is always situational.
True liberals don’t have this problem.
Whether it’s Reid or Hume, political correctness has run off the wheels in this country. While free speech recedes further and further into the distance with everyone afraid of what will happen if they say something controversial like Hume, or in Reid’s case, just plain dumb.
But seriously, who cares if Hume believes Tiger would benefit from Christianity, and what’s wrong with him stating his opinion in an opinion segment on a news show? Hume may be guilty of pundit overreach, but so what?
Last time I looked, free speech was #1 on the hit parade in the Bill of Rights.
UPDATE II: Reid talking points, via MSNBC’s First Read.
UPDATE: Tucker Carlson’s “The Daily Caller” launches today. This is their contribution to the discussion, including a headline that is just priceless, which includes a link to the liberal Washington Independent.
It was stupid for him to say it the way he said it and where he said it. but during the early part of the campaign alot of my African American friends were saying pretty much the same things.
Mine too interlude. In fact I heard many, many more comments of the type Reid said from AAs.
The Republicans are no longer interesterd in anything more than their own power.
Amen Taylor Marsh. I’m so tired of this “politics of petty” stuff. We got other problems that are definitely NOT petty.
http://tinyurl.com/y93go5c
Harry Reid voted “Yes” to allow bush to illegally invade Iraq. That alone should be enough to hammer this airhead into oblivion. But, lately he’s even exceeded that act of stupidity by bribing Senators like Nelson, Dodd and Landrieu to vote for his ridiculous Senate Health Care Bill. Reid’s nonsensical remark about Obama, and his ‘blackness’, pales when placed side by side with what Bill Clinton said to Ted Kennedy. A few years ago, said Bill to Ted, “This guy would have been getting us coffee.” Obama the porter, now that gives some insight about why Hillary’s campaign came off the rails in South Carolina. Peace
Glenn Greenwald has a wonderful take down of the gossipy book by Mark Halperin and John Heileman. It’s priceless.
“Political reporting” means “royal court gossip” http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/11/halperin/index.html
djjl says:
11 January 2010 at 10:24 am
Like Democrats aren’t?
ps-An “update insert” in the post, which was just added.
My favorite part of the Reid comment is Negro Dialect. I have to say that if a Republican said that, oh say like Sarah Palin, the Democrats would have been playing blood sport as well.
Taylor — Naive me has a question for you… I’ve got the TV on this am (MSNBC) and they are all a “twitter” over this book. One thing they reference is a telephone conversation between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton… when he was trying to convince her to accept the SOS position. So here’s my naivete… do other people listen in on such conversations? Are they recorded? Or did Obama tell someone about her comments and then they were leaked. Just wondering..
So far this book seems pretty gossipy to me and seems that some pundits are calling Halperin and the other guy on it.. I say good for the pundits..
Also — It appears … from what I’ve heard… that the only person portrayed in a positive manor…. is … you guessed it… The Obamas…… All stuff Clinton/Edwards/Biden/Palin……bad…. All stuff Obama……good… To that I say…………yeah..right….
Hey whitepaw. I imagine it as something like telephone, frankly. That’s why my weekend post on it began, “Jackie Collins, eat your heart out.”
Of course, it’s quite possible someone overheard or was in the room, to which I obviously cannot speak. It’s more likely that someone told someone, who told someone, etc.
That said, to my knowledge the authors never claimed the book was high-falutin history. They got the Reid quote correct, so their sources don’t suck completely.
Also don’t forget that politicians and their staff leak things advantageous to themselves. No one is exempt from this, whether we’re talking Hillary, Obama or Bill Clinton. The opposite is true as well. Staffs can leak what’s harmful to their adversaries in order to exact revenge or to make sure their side gets told.
The authors couldn’t have written this book if people inside, from various levels, didn’t play ball.
PS – As for Obama being portrayed well, don’t forget that he ran a *very* tight ship, including keeping people on message and not fighting amongst themselves. That’s to his credit, which perhaps is validated in the book, according to what we know so far. Clinton’s team was known for infighting between the different camps inside it, which Mark Penn’s presence didn’t help.
Taylor Marsh says:
11 January 2010 at 11:07 am
djjl says:
11 January 2010 at 10:24 am
Like Democrats aren’t?
Perhaps I should have been more clear. I think generally Democrats are interested in the welfare and good being of the everyday man. I think Republicans are more interested in a much less egalitarian system – one that allows the “haves” to have more for the sake of more alone. Thus the highly concentrated wealth in the hands of the few.
Ah, yes. Someone makes a statement that about a million others made during the election campaign, a statement which is completely true, and it becomes a scandal. Ridiculous, for what Reid said was not so much racist as a judgment on the white folks who think that way.
Yes, Taylor, it is a wonder more journalists aren’t in trouble, the way things are. And I agree, by the way, that Clinton probably did not say the remark attributed to him, perhaps something more in the line of the frequently heard “if Obama were white he would not be called out like this.” Another true statement.
Odd that the Republicans are so anti-political correctness, until they are for it.
Taylor Marsh says:
PS – As for Obama being portrayed well, don’t forget that he ran a *very* tight ship, including keeping people on message and not fighting amongst themselves. That’s to his credit, which perhaps is validated in the book, according to what we know so far. Clinton’s team was known for infighting between the different camps inside it, which Mark Penn’s presence didn’t help.
–
Taylor — Thanks for addressing my naivete…
And in re: to your post above… I do give the Obama campaign team credit for staying on message and for the lack of infighting. After all… who would mess with the tidal wave at the time… It is like being a cheerleader for Alabama this year (as opposed to the OSU Beavers in their bowl game!… sigh..
).
It will be interesting to see how Obama’s campaign team beahoves in 2012!
alphonsegaston says:
11 January 2010 at 1:01 pm
Ah, yes. Someone makes a statement that about a million others made during the election campaign, a statement which is completely true, and it becomes a scandal. Ridiculous, for what Reid said was not so much racist as a judgment on the white folks who think that way.
——–
My husband said EXACTLY the same thing this morning…
–
“Taylor — Thanks for addressing my naivete…
And in re: to your post above… I do give the Obama campaign team credit for staying on message and for the lack of infighting. After all… who would mess with the tidal wave at the time…”
Sounds about like what enamored so many for so long about George W Bush.
And there really is no comparison between what Reid said and what Trent Lott was understood to say.
Reid essentially said what VP Biden said almost 3 years ago:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama/
WASHINGTON (CNN) –
snip
His remarks about Obama, the only African-American serving in the Senate, drew the most scrutiny.
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” Biden said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
snip
“Barack Obama is probably the most exciting candidate that the Democratic or Republican Party has produced at least since I’ve been around,” Biden said on the call. “And he’s fresh. He’s new. He’s smart. He’s insightful. And I really regret that some have taken totally out of context my use of the world ‘clean.’”
Above and beyond the tabloid stuff, the most revealing thing that came out of the book was that Obama was the “establishment” candidate, while Hillary was the insurgent. Most people thought it was the other way around. Now we are paying for it.
This is quite different,imho, than what Reid said:
Trent Lott’s Troublesome Words
Dec. 5, 2002
At Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party, the Senate Majority leader said:
“I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years.”
22 Years Ago
In 1980, Lott, then a House member from Mississippi, told a home state political gathering that if the country had elected segregationist candidate Strom Thurmond to the presidency “30 years ago, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today.”
That would have been referring to the fact that Thurmond ran for the Presidency in 1948. Adam Clymer’s notion of what a Thurmond presidency might have entailed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/weekinreview/it-s-1949-meet-president-strom-thurmond.html?pagewanted=1
Platform of Thurmond’s 1948 States Rights Democratic Party (generally known as the Dixiecrats):
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/dixiecrat1.html
Ramsgate
Indeed he was and IS the establishment candidate.
Ramsgate says:
11 January 2010 at 2:00 pm
Above and beyond the tabloid stuff, the most revealing thing that came out of the book was that Obama was the “establishment” candidate, while Hillary was the insurgent. Most people thought it was the other way around. Now we are paying for it.
—-
Has anyone read the book yet or just getting snippets from blogs, etc. I think it is just being released today? But the pundits were given advance copies..
Also — I’m just hearing Joe Madison (??) being interviewed by Contessa B. on MSNBC… stating that WJC’s remarks are worse than Reid’s. This whole book is just another excuse to attack the Clintons… that’s what I’m seeing so far..
This book is not be an historian but a political gossip monger out for the big bucks – noted to likely be in the high 6 figures last year.
Hey, kick’in the Big Dog is meaningless. They have little credibility and hopefully will have less.
Hope so djjl.. Will they ever tire of kicking the Clintons? I like your posts about WJC and Gingrich…. the doll that keeps bouncing back up..
whitepaw says:
11 January 2010 at 2:08 pm
Whitepaw, good point. I have NOT read the book, but certainly have read a lot of reviews and heard lots of commentary about it. And based on what I have gathered so far . . . BO was the establishment candidate.
whitepaw,
Thanks, I love that story too – and it came from Gingrich. I appreciate Clinton’s willingness to make the tough fight on behalf of people.
They’ll tire when it’s saleability diminishes. The Halperins of the world will have less impact – it’s not like Doris Kearns Goodwin wrote the book. We’ve got MSM version of Jackie Collins -no offense meant to Ms Collins.
Hi djjl —
I watched some of Morning Joe this am (it is typically too early for me … but as I’m working from home today….).
I just caught part of the last hour… and what really annoyed me was how John Heilemann (other author) behaved. He seemed to take absolute “glee” in jumping into the conversation and trashing the Clintons whenever he could. Halperin looked almost embarassed. Well… that was my take… others may have a different POV.
But… you can’t convince me.. based on wathching what I saw this am… that at least John Heilemann doesn’t have an “agenda”.
Heilemann has “grown up” in the media world where trashing one of the Clintons’ was, could I say, – blood sport.
There are a lot of people who’ve earned a lot of money trashing the Clintons – that’s what happens when the “establishment” doesn’t like anyone that bounces back when they smack’em down.
… from djjl:
that’s what happens when the “establishment” doesn’t like anyone that bounces back when they smack’em down.
——-
yep…
djjl says:
11 January 2010 at 2:07 pm
I think the men = establishment in the party thought a woman couldn’t win the presidency, especially one strong person like Hillary. George McGovern even spoke to this during the primary. That’s why we need more women in Congress. I never thought for one second that Hillary would lose to McCain. I believe the exit polls proved that. I think the polls showed she would have won by more than Obama did, if I am not mistaken.
Isn’t watching the Congress and WH like watching Desperate Housewives? Good lord, new drama every week.
BTW djjl – If it was Kearns Goodwin it would be plagiarism
Even if you deem to label all of her work under “plagiarist” it would still stand tall above the like of these gossip whores.
I so agree with you lynette.
I agree with that djjl. And I don’t think all of her work was accused of being plagiarized but she certainly had quite a bit of explaining to do.
OK — Just watched the tail end of Hardball… and saw an AA woman (don’t know her name)… state that what Bill Clinton said was extremely offensive … much more so than what Reid said… and that the AAs need to really consider which dems they do and don’t support… (not exact quotes but something along those lines).
Then there was another AA male (former SFO mayor) I think… who said that he does not believe WJC has a racist bone in his body..
This is really becoming a circus… All Repubs are attacking Reid… But the Dems are taking sides… Reid vs. Clinton… too weird.
And…. must say… everything seems to be based on “heresay”…. aka “un-named sources”…
Although Reid did quickly acknowledge what he said.
My guess is that everyone else is just tired of being beaten up. As far as Elizabeth Edwards… wish she hadn’t written her recent book (haven’t read that either….. but it just kept everything exposed… why do it.. she didn’t need the $$).
Like I said whitepaw….Desperate Housewives.
Kris… exactly…
It strikes me as odd that there was so little outrage when Obama dismissed Hillary’s career as nothing more than attending teas.
My, my how much the color of skin colors everything you hear.
I’m absolutely sick of there being this outrageous 2 standards required depending on what color your skin – or half of it – is. Even one who had a typical white woman as a grandmother.
djjl says:
11 January 2010 at 6:36 pm
It strikes me as odd that there was so little outrage when Obama dismissed Hillary’s career as nothing more than attending teas.
That’s because the men of the MSM thought it was funny and amusing. I didn’t find it funny at all; I rather thought her first lady experience and connections were an asset.
The MEN are in charge and some even want to be in charge of a woman’s body. You do notice that the women in MSM – when they get a step up there with the big boyz – tend to follow their lead.. I guess it’s either that are be barred as tweety apparently did Craig Crawford. Crawford was apt to be FAIR and obviously didn’t have the tingle sufficiently up his leg.
You know djjl — I was just thinking the same thing .. Ed show now.. and Stephanie Miller is on.. She was discussing how what Reid said could really be excused based on “old man syndrome”…
Yet there is nothing said about Obama’s “typical white woman” comment…
And — right… re: attending teas……
“disclaimer” I have only been paying 1/4 attention to these shows so may have missed something crucial… but likely not!
djjl says:
11 January 2010 at 6:45 pm
exactly, and you are so right about Craig Crawford, IMO.
Fortunately for me, I’ve not been watching tv today. It’s all I can do not to explode in anger here. I’m sick of being told I don’t care enough for some group because I think this president has shown us a lousy first year all the while frittering away enormous goodwill and trust. He won’t regain the trust imo, he may keep a vote, but he’ll no longer be able to do the enormous good that he could have should he have kept the trust of the people. He only had to want to keep the trust – but that would have meant that the people would have to been at least as important as his Wall Street and establishment benefactors.
bbl
Gotta cool down.
” Lott’s tribute to Thurmond could just as easily have been interpreted as Lott saying something nice about the old man, even if it was politically tone deaf”
Taylor,
This was not any old man, this was Strom Freaking Thurman. Strom Thurman, arch Dixiecrat. Strom Thurman, arch segregationist. Strom Thurman,arch bigot with a taste for dark meat. Saying that the nation would be better with Strom Thurman as President, is like wishing that Lee won the Civil War. It was not only an impolitic thing to say; it was a profoundly ignorant thing to say. Saying it a room full of pasty white guys was adding insult to injury.
The presidential run of Dixiecrat Thurman against Harry Truman was a black spot in the History of the U.S. It was an attempt to smother the civil rights movement in its crib.
Please also remember that Lott’s comments were public, being made by the leader of the Senate to a roomful of people. Reid’s comments were supposed to be private. Another difference is that Reid comes from a state, Nevada; a religion, Mormonism; and a generation that did not have much contact with A-As.
Lott, on the other hand, could not claim any of that. Lott’s pandering to bigotry was and is a hard edged and conscious appeal to the darker instincts of the electorate. It was a strategy to capture bitter, bigoted, racist, rural, white male voters. Lott’s comments were rightly interpreted as him getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar; an example of the mask of deniability slipping of his (two) face(s)
Maybe Lott should have been given a pass on the comment, as bad as it was, but please don’t peddle the Republican talking point about there being some sort of equivalence between Lott’s statement about Strom Thurman and Reid’s about Obama, it is utter nonsense. It is a false equivalence. It’s apples and pumpkins.
As for the magic underwear wearing Senator from Nevada, it would be no great loss if his malapropism about Obama was the final nail in his political coffin. His tenure as leader of the Senate Democrats can be neatly summarized as “pathetic.” He may not be racist, but he is most certainly clueless.
Please note the Dixiecrat platform AND what Lott said in 1980:
#
#
djjl says:
11 January 2010 at 2:02 pm
If Bill Clinton’s comments were racist, what is the logic? that he thought Ted Kennedy was a closet racist and the use of a coded racist comment, was that going to win Ted Kennedy over, or is it that Clinton is such a racist and just can’t help himself.
Now let me see if I have this straight…
The party that thought it was just fine when elected officials and staff members along with RNC members sent around a picture of President Obama literally with a bone through his nose, sent around a poster of the presidents on which President Obama’s picture was a black square with two white eye balls, has NO problem hanging out at teabagger events where the N word is bandies about and appears on signs,has SENATORS complain that their states PROBLEM is it has to many negros,had elected officials say Katrina was a GOOD thing because New Orleans would be “whiter” after it was rebuilt…THIS bunch, along with some knukleheaded posters here think Reid stating a truth in an old white guy kinda way, but NOT as a slur or in a denegrating way is WORSE then the repugnatklans record…Do I have that straight?
Some of you folks are SO much more fu*ked in your heads then I EVER realized before!!!!!
Sec… What???
Glad to see the positive remarks about Craig Crawford here–his excommunication from MSNBC was obvious. I notice that he has been allowed back.
sec
It seems to me that it is supposed REAL Democrats and liberal/progressives (rather than any “situational” variety) who are liable to be called pretty much ANY negative thing by posters here;\’ who’s main interest is to defend/praise the person of Obama before anyone real person who chooses to defend the principles and standards of what was formerly know as the Democratic Party.
Do we call them Obamacrats?
Yeah, alphonsegaston, you’ll find very few posters here who are personality driven OR situational Democrats. Most who understand, really CARE about the Democratic Party and it’s principles. they are the kind who didn’t have to be without health care, didn’t have to have a pre-existing condition, or be a portion black to be concerned about equity in the many areas that are fundamental to Main Street Americans.
This IS NOT about Reid and what he said. This is about FINDING AN EXCUSE to take away a Dem vote and Stop the Health Bill. If a Dem farted in public, the rightwing would scream for his/her resignation right now.
Period.
pmichael says:
12 January 2010 at 6:40 am
Amen.
” whitepaw says:
11 January 2010 at 11:18 pm
Sec… What???”
I am referancing those members of our dear lil community who have time after time after time after time after time as in EVERY post make the same assinine statement that the Dems are JUST AS BAD as the repugs. Actually have the balls to equate anything, anything at all with what went on during the l previous misadministration.
Quite simply there is NO comparisson and to make such a claim pretty much establishes the crazy as a shit house rat credentials of the poster who would make such a stupid statement. Someone like say….oh I donknow…imhopless fer example!