In case you haven’t heard, Harry Reid–the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate–was royally facepalmed this weekend.
In a new book out Tuesday, (Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime) , TIME magazine senior political analyst Mark Halperin and New York Magazine writer John Heilemann write:
[Reid's] encouragement of Obama was unequivocal. He was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,” as he said privately.
Reid made record time apologizing on Saturday, and rightly so. His comments could easily add up to a claim that (1) darker-skinned African-Americans could never be elected President, or that (2) Barack Obama is a smooth-talking phony who can shift gears into Ebonics when it helps him, or that (3) “talking black” somehow makes you an Untouchable in polite society.
Now, I’m not commenting on whether or not those three things are true. But of course it’s a no-no to say so out loud. So Reid hurriedly apologized for being racially insensitive, and Obama (just as quickly) “accepted Harry’s apology without question.”
Now let’s turn the ol’ time machine back to 2002, when the newly minted Senate Minority Leader, Trent Lott (a Republican), was forced to step down from his leadership role for–wait for it– being racially insensitive.
On the occasion of Senator Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday, Lott said that when Thurmond ran for President in 1948, more states should have gone for him, like Lott’s home state of Mississippi did:
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 either.
Problem: Thurmond ran as a segregationist. So the world fell on Trent Lott like a .
I remember thinking at the time that no one could be stupid enough to endorse segregationist politics in 2002, and thinking that he must have meant his praise to be more generic–the sort of thing you say while toasting your boss at his wedding, even if you really don’t wish him and his bride many happy years of wedded bliss.
Regardless of what he meant at the time, Lott went on the BET network to apologize. He noted that he hadn’t even met Thurmond until 40 years after that presidential run. And he fielded questions. Here’s one excerpt that caught my attention:
You know, I was surprised, and that shows you where I’ve done wrong. I mean, obviously I had a blind spot. I was insensitive in the words I chose, the extra phrase I added.
I did not in any way mean to be endorsing policies of 54 years ago. I was trying to make happy an incredible, legendary human being that, you know, holds the record in the Senate, was 100 years old, landed at Normandy. And I love him for so many things he has done and the growth that he has shown. But that doesn’t justify it, you know.
When you’re from Mississippi and when you are Republican leader, you got an extra burden to make sure you think about every word and every phrase so that it doesn’t convey the wrong impression or hurt people. And so, while I was, you know, surprised because I was just into the event, I still have caused a major problem, and I want to get over that …
I’m not about to resign for an accusation that I’m something I’m not.And my colleagues have been very good about calling. Even, you know, Sen. Paul Simon from Illinois was at the event. He’s a Democrat, ran for president, a pretty liberal Democrat, really nice guy. I’m crazy about him, too. He brought over and introduced me to his wife because his first wife I had known and passed away a couple of years ago.
He called and said, “Look, I was there. I saw the tone of the event. I heard what you said. I in no way, you know, read into it what has been inferred.” And so, I mean, that’s what a Democrat said.
But not every Democrat, of course. Barack Obama, then a state senator in Illinois, guest-hosted a radio program shortly after Trent Lott was served his media-sized crap sandwich. From the Chicago Defender (dug up by The Weekly Standard):
Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D-13th), who hosted WVON’s Cliff Kelley Show, challenged the Republican Party to repudiate Lott’s remarks and to call for his resignation as senate leader.
“It seems to be that we can forgive a 100-year-old senator for some of the indiscretion of his youth, but, what is more difficult to forgive is the current president of the U.S. Senate (Lott) suggesting we had been better off if we had followed a segregationist path in this country after all of the battles and fights for civil rights and all the work that we still have to do,” said Obama.
He said: “The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party.”
First off, Lott wasn’t President of the Senate. (That job belongs to the Vice President of the United States.) And he wasn’t even Minority Leader yet. (He had been elected by his peers to the post, but he wasn’t scheduled to take over until the following month.)
But more to the point, the then-very-nonfamous Obama wasn’t in a very forgiving mood.
Harry Reid starts talking about “negros,” though, and it’s all hugs and kisses. Is it just me, or is Obama applying a double standard?
Hat Tip: Practically everyone on the Internet
Bonus Material: Years before he had a radio show, Mark Levin noted that Bill Clinton gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom (the highest civilian honor there is) to Senator William Fulbright. Another rabid segregationist. Also at his birthday party. Levin’s piece was titled “Selective Moral Outrage.” In a followup piece, Levin noted that there was absolutely no moral outrage when another Senator heaped praise on Strom Thurmond’s life (and his Presidential run) a few months earlier. That Senator was Carl Levin, a Democrat.
Related posts:
- We Are Thankful That So Many Famous People Are Phonies For our readers overseas, the American “Thanksgiving” holiday is usually...
- Arlen Specter Gives Up the Ghost Sometimes they just make it too easy. The Hill, March...
- Obama and Harry Reid: Fear & Looting in Las Vegas Today is the day President Obama flies out to Las...
- Obama Then And Now: Deficit Edition Obama doublespeak continues to abound. This week Congress and the...
- Ready to switch political parties? Not so fast! Or… Okay? April 29, 2009: Senator Arlen Specter’s calculated jump to...
The sad part is, the voters won’t remember – or care – come November.
Typical “Please stay in the plantation, there’s evil Klansmen outside” rhetoric.
Harry Reid was also heard talking about his senate seat coming up. “This election is lost.”
Honestly–I’d be shocked to the point of losing bladder control if Barack Obama did something that wasn’t hypocritical, partisan or deceitful. Same goes for Congress, and I’m referring to either party.
And also: “NEGRO”?!? WTF? Was Reid just hopping out of his ReTARDIS, fresh from 1952 or something? Even when I was a small kid in the early 70s, that term was out and “colored” was in. But he doesn’t pick “Afro-American”, “colored”, or “man of color”. Nope.
I’m intrigued to see what hay, if any, will be made out of Clinton’s claim to Teddy Kennedy that “ten years ago, this guy (Obama) would have been bringing us coffee”.
I’m just pissed off that I can no longer say black (the actual color) in Spanish with out being called/considered racist….and yet it’s okay and presidentially forgiven to use the same word “in context”. What a time to live in………
I am amazed by the speed to which Obama reacted to this ‘crisis’. Unlike the Christmas day bomber when we had to wait until he finished his golf game and waffles before he deigned to make a statement. That Obama is a hypocrite does not surprise me. There is nothing genuine about this jerk.
It’s not a big deal as long as it is a democrat. Remember Hillary Clinton making a joke that Gandhi works at a gas station in St.Louis? Can you imagine a prominent republican joking about that and getting away with it?
mEEE: Don some kneepads and Chapstick, and Obama would probably give you permission to say whatever you wanted.
Hey, is “Negroes” coming back into vogue? I’ve lost track. It USED to be OK, but then ‘black’ was in. (‘Negro’, at base, just means ‘black’ anyway.) ‘Colored’ was never quite OK, though it served as a considerable step up from ‘niggers’, and eventually became all warm-and-fuzzy as ‘person of color’.
Think about the ever-shifting nomenclature: It’s very revealing as to the real purpose of such words. They’re barriers and litmus tests. Only those using the very latest, most PC jargon are truly enlightened. All others are morally inferior. (And probably Rethuglicans.)
And it’s not ‘left’ – it’s ‘progressive’. But by all means use ‘Neocon’ and ‘right-wing’ to describe the other, unenlightened, side.
No need to hold oneself to a higher standard when it’s so easy to use labels to one’s advantage.
It’ll be a better world when we can call – Negroes? – ‘darkies’ without fear of race riots. And I’m more than willing to be a ‘cracker’, ‘honkey’ or ‘whitey’. Though there never was any retaliation for that sort of race-baiting, once it came into mainstream use.
We haven’t really worked out our racial crap, you know. We’ve just stuck it in the closet. Until we take ALL of it out, we’re gonna have the same old problems.
The next step up that PC ladder will be “pigment enhanced”.
California Dave
Jan 11th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
—————————–
Or “noir” (French for black); it just gosh-darned sounds more distinguished.
“Or “noir” (French for black); it just gosh-darned sounds more distinguished.”
I think you guys nailed it. Noir, once so hip in the movie biz, is what everyone will aspire to. “Tanning lotion” with be replaced by “noir cream”. George Lucan will come under fire for his Neanderthal propaganda against ‘the dark side’. “Pigment enhanced” will be IN. Who wants to be “pigment challenged”?
An albino just moved in next door. Dere go da neighborhood.
I find it ironic that I just watched Blazing Saddles yesterday.
And tell me something I don’t know. Even my father in law who has voted Democrat since he could vote blurted out that this guy is a liar and a thief. There is the hope and change feeling folks. Democrats are hoping that they can now change their vote.
“I just watched Blazing Saddles yesterday.”
‘Blazing Saddles’ is the best argument ever made that life is worth living.
Oops, gotta run. Candy-gram.
This doesn’t surprise me. Racism is quite selective. I mean Harry Reid isn’t reflecting what’s in his heart, he’s talking about them redneck Republicans. He’s saying maybe some of them will be enlightened to enough to vote for a black man they don’t see as too threatening.
Notice this, however, the book this comment is from was covered on 60 Minutes last night and I’ll be damned if they didn’t dump all over Sarah Palin. Yet not a word on Reid’s “negro” remark despite that being the subject making the rounds today.
I just read that Al Sharpton accepted Reid’s apology. Why is HE accepting the apology??? Reid didn’t say anything about him. The CBC is backing Reid too. If a Republican of ANY color had said this, it would not be okay. If Michael Steele had said this, everyone would be screaming for his resignation as Republican Party president. Just because Reid is probably getting his butt kicked in the election in November doesn’t mean he should be allowed to keep his post now.
I maintain that if one person can’t say it, nobody can say it.
Reid’s losing support anyways. If it’s not his words, then it will be the voters.
AllyKat, I’m reminded of that South Park episode where Randy goes on Wheel of Fortune…well, except that wasn’t Al Sharpton.
“Jesse Jackson is not the emperor of black people!”
“…..he told my dad he was.”
Quite frankly, Harry Reid is judging Barack Obama solely on the color of his skin, and not the content of his character.
There are active Democratic Senators (Robert Byrd, WA-D) who were KKK members.
Sen Chris Dodd himself has said that Byrd would have been a great leader…
http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/11/2004-flashback-dodd-sen-byrd-would-have-been-great/
Its time for race baiters like Al Sharpton to stop using accusations of racism as a weapon against their idealogical enemies.
History shows that the Democratic Party does not hold the moral high ground on this issue.
In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.
Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.
Martin Luther King, Jr was a Republican.
Fortunate_Son,
You forgot to mention how the Dems are also the party of the KKK and the ones stirring up hate during the Reconstruction period (since most of the “white south” was mostly Democrats); how easily does the Democratic party forget its true roots…
It doesnt matter what the president does it will never be good enough becuase of Americas deeply rooted racial issues. Plainly speaking; it doesnt matter if Obama runs this country perfectly without fail he’ll always be wrong becuase he’s a black man.
The comments in this forum are the reason African Americans are sensitive about racial issues. Society continues to prove that RACISM STILL EXIST!
That’s pretty ridiculous and hysterical, Kevin.