“Always on the right side of history”. It’s amazing how Reid’s racist comments, done while praising Obama, are perfectly acceptable to the black (or can I now say Negro community; after all James Clyburn now says there is nothing wrong with the word Negro). Of course, when Reid used disparaging remarks about Clarance Thomas he was on the wrong side of history. But then again, Clarance Thomas is not a “light skinned” negro, so it was a-ok for him to diminish this great man. The double standard is truly pathetic.

BO needs Reid to pass health care, he can’t throw him under the bus. . . yet.

One democrat senator has now stood up and refused to endorse Reid as leader. Russ Feingold; instapundit has the story.

Hannity is talking to Halprin and Heilemann tonight and they are talking about parts of the book that Anderson didn’t bother talking about, but so far he is making the same mistakes that Anderson did by not talking about Palin.

Obama shouldn’t have said he accepts Reid’s apology, he should have said Harry had nothing to apologize for.

end of story

I haven’t been watching any or all of the media reports, but obviously Reid was inarticulate and as for negro being a bad word — I hope no one told the ghost of Lou Rawls.

TIME Magazine must be seething. “Light-skinned? We had our best Photoshop guy blacken him up for our cover when it looked like could use it during the campaign.” The outrage they must feel at that elite weekly magazine that is now only seen in doctor & dentist offices.

AC360 is trying to make excuses for what Reid said and justifying why he may have said it.

Obama needs Reid to shepherd his liberal agenda through congress as Reid is a master of corrupt bills and bought votes.Reid’s comments show he is out of touch and seems to have not learned a thing since the 1950′s and that he is more worried about his agenda and power than people.Few others would have gotten away with saying such a thing in public and as a politician and representative of the people yet because Reid is who he is when he is he get’s off.It stinks and it’s another glaring reason why we should all be scared to death of what is going on in DC and of the people who think they are doing what is best for us,despite what we actually want.

Again, I’ve been busy with work, so I haven’t been amassed in the media’s latest diversion and I apologize if I’m saying something similar to any of the talking heads, but the President has a point…

Speaker Reid said something which may not play well on a piece of paper in praise of candidate Obama and now the same people who kept our attention on a failed bombing attempt for three weeks are now jumping up and down, trying get Harry Reid removed, obviously because it’d do more to wipe-out insurance reform than any other diversionary tactic.

Magister says:
January 11, 2010 at 11:58 pm

Speaker Reid said something which may not play well on a piece of paper in praise of candidate Obama and now the same people who kept our attention on a failed bombing attempt for three weeks are now jumping up and down, trying get Harry Reid removed, obviously because it’d do more to wipe-out insurance reform than any other diversionary tactic.

OR… it’s because Reid said something obviously offensive and stupid, and the double standard would call for a Republican who said similar (or even less worse) to get the boot.

Reid doesn’t just need to apologize to the President, he needs to apologize to Black people. His statement demonstrates that he thinks ALL Black people are supposed to speak a certain way, and anyone who doesn’t isn’t really “that Black.” And despite being a Democrat… yes, that line of bigoted thought is still offensive.

@ImNotBlue: Again, I haven’t really been following this and I’m not an African-American, but the quote that I’ve seen doesn’t strike me as offensive and perhaps because I’m not watching how everybody stirs it, but I don’t really understand the fuss.

(Oh and before you try to hit me, I think Trent Lott over-reacted and I’ve publicly commented and/or have written about that in the past)

If it’s the word “negro” — as I said before, tell it to Lou Rawls.

If it’s the “dialect”, then somebody should call Bill Cosby.

And, if it’s the “light-skinned is more accepted by white Americans meme” — there’s been countless articles written and studies conducted on the subject and there’s even historically been a division in the African-American community along those lines. (See Spike lee’s School Daze, a can’t-remember-the-title episode of Girlfriends or from what I understand, you probably may even be able to extrapolate aspects of Chris Rock’s Good Hair.

BTW and for the record: I’m only pointing toward pop culture and Spike Lee in that last parenthetical because it’s something everybody has seen or could see. I grew-up in the rural South and my class was only the second after my local school system desegregated. As a liberal, though I am not African-American, I’ve broken or have helped break many a color barrier and I point toward Girlfriends, simply because it’s easy.

What bothers me about all this the most is that you could, word for word, put what Reid said
into the mouth of an 1810 slave auctioneer. I’m surprised Reid didn’t try to check OBama’s teeth!
Maybe it is just the stupidity of judging another persons ability based in part on skin color that gets me
but damn it when will people understand that zero tolerance for this crap is the only way to do it!

*Sigh* Maybe MY ‘can of stupid’ is leaking… :(

Magister says:
January 12, 2010 at 12:23 am

I think there are a few flaws in your logic… although, they’re not entirely unreasonable.

1– Just because someone else (especially in this case, a Black person) uses a certain term to describe themselves, it doesn’t mean everyone else can. We’ve seen this time and time again. How many rappers refer to one another with the “N” word… and how broken do you think you’d get, as a White person, if you decided you can use that word, like they use that word.

Is it a double standard… a bit. But then again, it’s a human nature double standard. I can make fun of my family… you can’t. I can make fun of my religion, and my friend can tease me too… but some guy I don’t know can’t. And so on. The term “Negro” may have been said by others, but that doesn’t necessarily mean Harry Reid can say it, and certainly not in that context.

2– Harry Reid was suggesting that there is a way that “almost all Blacks” speak… and only a few of them don’t, and Obama is apparently one of them… unless he “needs to be.” This is a two parter… first off, it shows that Reid thinks Obama can “turn it on” as he needs to, play to his audience, and is a phony. Whether or not Reid thinks Obama is a phony because he fakes “talking White,” or fakes “talking Black,” is debatable.

Secondly, it is a stereotype. But let me ask you this, do you think Harry Reid meant, “Black dialect” in a positive way? Methinks not. Reid was in effect saying that Obama is “articulate,” while most Black people aren’t. Isn’t that a stereotype? Isn’t that racism?

3– As for Lott… there are a lot of examples of the right getting beat up on more than the left. That’s just par for the course… and this is yet another example. The media will have moved on by Wednesday… but will still be talking about Palin “forgetting” Biden’s name (and I quote that, because as so many have already shown, she -a- didn’t forget, -b- made the same mistake as others, including Democrats, and -c- told the story months ago, so it’s old news) for many weeks to come. It’s a double standard… but that’s nothing new.

4– Your comment about the “light skinned” part is correct. There is a history of animosity within the Black community towards lighter skinned Blacks… that’s simply history. However, I think Reid’s intention was to suggest that this might be a problem for Obama’s campaign… in other words, Reid was worried that Obama was the “wrong kind of Black” to get the minority vote. That strikes me as awfully cynical, and very calculating… it does support the theory that Obama’s race was part of a political strategy from the left, than an incidental factor of a qualified candidate. In other words, it appears that Reid saw him as “Black” first, and “qualified” second… and that’s not a good thing.

The bottom line is that Harry Reid said something really boneheaded. He made broad generalizations about a race, and it shouldn’t be tolerated. Not because it was rude towards candidate/President Obama… but because it was rude towards millions of Americans. Maybe he should resign, maybe not (personally, I think not… it will be easier to beat him as candidate Reid later this year, than to beat Reid’s replacement… and the KOS agrees)… but his apology fell flat. The White House (as well as Obama supporters, and many media folk) want to sweep this under the rug… make believe it didn’t happen… talk about something else. And that’s the problem. Reid needs to make a real apology, not have Obama say he, “forgives him.” Obama isn’t the Pope, and this isn’t confession.

The way I see it… Reid apologized to Obama. Great. One down, millions more to go.

libra blue says:
January 11, 2010 at 9:25 pm

Well the difference between Hannity and 60 minutes is taht Hannity is honest about his partisain bs.

@ImNotBlue: What I heard from “black dialect” and the reason for the Cosby reference was that Mr. Cosby has been on a crusade for quite some time against ebonics or “gang talk” because one can’t get ahead in our society, if they don’t speak the Queen’s english.

As for possibly “playing to the audience”, the easy quip would be to point toward Bill & Hill, but because I wanted to catch-up on this “issue” a bit, I just read an interesting thinkpiece on cnn.com.

Otherwise and this isn’t directly pointed toward you, though I don’t know your ancestral history, but…

My measure of “offense” is whether the person or group that may be offended, actually feels that way.

Sure, admittedly I’ve been too busy lately to focus on this latest attempt to derail insurance reform and send the remaining Obama agenda off the tracks, but I’m not hearing a huge (or really any) uproar from the African-American community. And for a group of non-blacks to say or imply that they should be offended and lusting for his head, except they don’t know any better or they’re blinded by ignorance seems to be a lot more racist in my opinion.

IOW: If the black community was up in arms, I may or may not feel differently, but they’re not. Instead, it seems to just be the folks looking for a Waterloo.

(Oh, and BTW: My use of inarticulate in my initial comment was purposeful, if you didn’t catch it)

so i guess don imus is a bad man who has always been on the wrong side of history?

What in the world does Don Imus have to do with this story? Don Imus is a shock jock. He knows as much about history as Rush Limbaugh does about nutrition or marriage, as Carrie Prejean knows about contract law. They are cult figures. Their views on any topic are worth only what their fans ascribe to them. They add nothing to our shared body of knowledge. What an utterly ridiculous thing for you to say.

Sara: “always on the right side of history” – Reid (on Iraq): THIS WAR IS LOST. I won’t repeat what Reid said about Clarance Thomas.

But I will repeat that it is truly amazing to watch the democrats and the media (yes, I repeat myself) throw MLK under the bus, just one week before the nation celebrates his birthday.

All this is just another example of Liberal zombie Democrats continuing to use “race” as a political STRATEGY. Remember how Hilary and obama would turn on their “black preacher voice” during the campaign. I’ll never forget Hilary’s “I ain’t no ways tired” speech. Reid’s comment is no slip of the tongue, either. It came out of his heart and this is who he is.

The double standard is not limited to race or race related topics. Just imagine if George W. Bush had been caught committing 1% of the “indiscretions” of the Stain Master?? This duplicity is the product of a general approach or m.o. that left wing liberal philosophy and culture is morally superior, main stream and therefore legitimate. The other ideology is hence to be demonized, smeared and driven from public debate whatever means. The Liberal Zombie operates on this very hypocrisy.

This is interesting: http://www.breitbart.tv/the-last-time-a-white-democrat-commented-on-obamas-campaign-and-race/.

Shows how G. Ferraro said something in a very similar vein to Reid and the difference in what Obama thought about her saying it vs. Reid saying it. Hypocrite.

Magister says:
January 12, 2010 at 1:37 am

I get the Cosby reference… but I also remember a few years back where a number of Black politicians were trying to get “Ebonics” classified as a language, not just slang. I think Cosby can say certain things that Reid can’t… and I also think the intent was different. Cosby is trying to help improve Black youths, who may use slang to a point where it’s indecipherable from their professional language. He’s right, that may prevent them from moving ahead in corporate culture. Reid, however, was speaking of it as though Obama won’t be able to communicate with “the masses.” He was looking down upon the people, not trying to help them. I don’t think it’s an apples to apples comparison.

The article you linked to makes some okay points… and some bad points. For example, the 3 types of voters is wrong, IMO. How can she says, that a group of White voters are “enthusiastic about voting for black candidates when they have the opportunity,” and then say that they’re, “largely unaffected by characteristics like skin color.” That’s a contradiction. There are two types of voters, again IMO… ones who are affected by the candidates race -vote against OR for based upon skin color-, and the ones who judge qualifications and policies. The writer seems to suggest that the racists are bad, and they are… that the ‘issues’ voters are less bad, but still bad… and there are the ‘enthusiastic minority supporters’ who vote on skin color, and they’re good. That’s simply wrong.

But that’s just one example, and there are some other points of value in the article… although, I’m not sure I recognized the point you were driving at. As for Hill & Bill, yes they too could be accused of “playing to the audience,” as Hillary’s accent seemed to come and go. But that doesn’t make the situation any less phony.

Now, what you said about groups being “offended” is very interesting… and I surely see where you’re coming from… however, that isn’t how society works. Sara brought up an interesting point after you post about Imus. When Imus made his comments, few people heard them… it was only after they went public across the Internet, that groups got “offended.” I suppose it’s a “if a tree falls in the forest” type of argument… if nobody hears it, is it really offensive?

I’m not sure we can judge on that scale effectively, though. I think that would leave some people with carte blanche to say whatever they want… and others perpetually under the microscope. We already see that with the level of outrage that comes from the big race guys today (Sharpton, Jackson, etc). They’ll cover for a Harry Reid because he supports their agenda… but if a Bill O’Reilly, or someone on the “other side” said something half as “offensive,” they’d be leading protests. I don’t think it necessarily takes a racial history to know what’s right and wrong to say… it just takes common sense.

(@ BTW… I’m not sure I understood your comment then. What was the purpose?)

@ImNotBlue: I was trying to make a back-door reference to Joe Biden’s comments about candidate Obama; “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy”.

Magister says:
January 12, 2010 at 1:32 pm

Gotcha! Sometimes you gotta spell it out! ;)

2011 new style!!

http://www.nike4world.com