So Harry Reid, the majority leader of the democrats in the Senate recently was discovered to have made this remark:

"Obama is a light-skinned African-American with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

And so now we see the hypocrisy dance of the left. One they do so well, and so often.

The left is going out of their way to do two things:

1. argue that the nuance of what Reid said is what's important, it speaks of all of white America's need for soul searching to recognize the racist in all of us...

2. Snap their fingers like a magician saying "Look over here, look over here". They bring up Trent Lott and try to say that what Reid said was no where as bad as Trent Lott. Which is a joke, since Trent Lott said something with no thought to race, and Reid was 101% about race. Lott was trying to say something nice about a 100 year old man at his birthday, Reid was trying to acknowledge that whites might accept Obama because he's not 'real black'.


Of course Obama has 'accepted' Reid's apology. What else can he do? Demand that Reid leave? Stand up for his race? Act like a man and kick Reid's white butt?

Of course not, Reid's apology 2 years later was heartfelt...I'm sure.




The democrat party: Home to racism since the Jim Crow years

I can't speak for the democratic party. Pretty much every politician is a hipocrite in some way.

But what Reid actually said:


"Obama is a light-skinned African-American with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

is unequivocally true. Some may be offended by the use of the word "Negro." It sounds better if he says :

"Obama is a light-skinned African-American with no urban dialect, unless he wanted to have one."


Saying that a black person is black isn't racist.


(If a Republican made the same commend, I'd like to think that I'd make a similar response.)

Determining a person's qualifications for holding public office by the amount of pigmentation in their skin and or the accent they possess would not fall under the classification of 'unequivocally true' in any other setting.

It's okay..you guys also had a former Grand Wizard for the KKK in your leadership. I get why you guys are quick with the excuses. I mean if you can excuse a KKK Grand Wizard, then this is a piece of cake.

I don't see him saying anything along those lines in the above quote. (I haven't followed the whole story).

From what I've heard, he was talking to somebody in private and was describing why Obama had a good chance at winning.

Again, I'd argue it's pretty objective that a half-black guy who is well spoken would be much more acceptable to many people in this country than a completely black guy with a string dialect. That's what Reid was saying, right?

He wasn't saying that Obama is smarter because he's black, or because he's only half black, or whatever. He was describing politics.

But unfortunately, the Democrat party has lot the right to de-race the phrase just because there is truth to it. They have used the race card like a club for decades. Trying to get away with saying something as blatantly racist as this is too much.

I would like you to consider the fact that Reid felt he needed to apologize and Obama felt the need to accept his apology. Neither one of them felt that the statement was defensible, and neither one of them is making your points on their own.

Of course the other thing to look at from what you've said is that Reid was commenting on the chances for a democrat politician to be chosen by the democrats.

The republicans are supposed to be the ones who only see skin color, why would a democrat need to worry that other democrats would see Obama as anything other than a politician and an American?


It would appear that even the leadership of the democrat party realizes that race is a big deal in the democrat party.

I agree with LLY, what Reid said is inarguably true.

However, the use of the word Negro is very peculiar and inappropriate, especially for a politician.

And yet when Reid felt that he 'had' to apologize, Obama didn't acted surprised and say: "I don't see what you need to apologize for"

And since you point out the use of the word Negro, don't you think that would kind of add to the case of the motivation of what was said?

It is very nice of you to be so forgiving, but racist don't deserve concessions. They deserve to be shown for the people that they are.


It's not like Reid is going to get re-elected anyway.

You really don't know the difference between real racism and politically incorrect language?

95% of the stuff people are forced to apologize for is not actually racism.

You don't see the that saying that a person has a chance to get elected because he doesn't look or sound real black is not politically incorrect language, but is in fact racist?

How about when Bill Clinton who said to Ted Kennedy : "Come on Ted, couple years ago this guy would have been getting us coffee"

And when Ted acted indignant about it, Bill then replied: "Come on Ted, the only reason you are voting for him is because he's black"


Was that just incorrect political language, or in fact is this an indication of how much of a dirt bag Clinton really is?

Like the fact that you are a dirty Jew. That's not racist, it's a fact.

Whose votes did Reid think Obama could get that he otherwise would not have received if he was "blacker?"


Also, if it is accepted that people sound more intelligent when not speaking in an urban/negro dialect, why do we teach ebonics?

To keep the black man down, that's why!

Note: I don't know anything about the teaching of ebonics. I don't know if it still happens or how it is taught. But the above sounded good when I said it. Although I'm not sure what point I was making. Ok, carry on.

I'm not sure the validity of his statement is the issue.

But to answer your question, I'd say about 10 million.

I'm not speaking to the validity.

What I meant was, did he think 10 million democrats would vote for Obama, but wouldn't vote for a blacker Obama? Republicans? Independents? 3 million in each? Who does Harry Reid think is influenced by this?

Only Racist. e g Democrats Haha vb..I used eg instead of ie

I do not see that as racist, no. It is commenting on the consequences of racism.

"Given that the population is racist, someone who looks or acts like the category of people they are racist against will have a hard time getting elected" is not a racist statement.

Years of research in cognitive science have shown that mental categories are prototype-based. We are much quicker to say that a dove is a bird than we are to say that a penguin is a bird. Reid is saying that Obama does not fall very close to the prototype of black person in the American mind. The fact that such a mental landscape exists in the first place is racism, but pointing out the existence of such a landscape is not.

I'll give you dirty, but I dispute the Jew part.

Insanity: Trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.



So we can ignore the fact that in every political arena except the presidency, a black man who isn't 'half-white' has been elected and or appointed. That the voting populous on every level has shown that color isn't a major issue, and that in fact recent history has shown that minority status is a positive for political candidates...but Harry Reid was just 'telling it like it is'.

That only works if you first make the case that this country is more racist than not.

Also, for the record, Bill Clinton was correct in stating that a few years ago Obama would have only been allowed to serve him coffee.

And Imus was correct that many black girl's hair is nappy...should you apply the current urban definition.

Oh and I was correct when I pointed out that one of the leaders of teh democrat party was a former Grand Wizard of the KKK, and is now a former leader of the DNC, and was comfortable with both assignments

"Unlesshe wanted to have one" is the worst part of the entire statement.

He is suggesting that the way blacks speak is something they can just turn on and off.

And that black speak is disingenuous

Ironically, repeating that phrase will never make it correct.



Whether or not he was correct about the consequences of racism is irrelevant to whether or not he was being racist.




I don't know the context of the Clinton thing, but don't assume that I think these two situations involved racism either.

Just so we are clear...for the future as it were.

Whenever the subject of the possible racism is a republican, I assume you are morally outraged ( you being your side )

Whenever the subject of the possible racism is a democrat, I assume you are contemplative and willing to see the truth by getting into the mud for the higher good so we can grow as a society.



I am now merely building up my future material of references for when it's one of my guys who says something so stupid that I cannot believe that he's ever been elected, let alone in a position of leadership.

And the reference to the Clinton thing is about Obama, just like the worse case scenario plays out for you...

I don't recall ever being morally outraged by racism.

After all, I'm white.

You don't watch much politics, do you?

Here is some interesting quotes I found from the Trent Lott comments in 2002

• ‘His apology does not take away the sting of his divisive words…‘ - Barbara Boxer
• ‘I can tell you if a Democratic leader said such a thing, they would not be allowed to keep their position,’ - Mary Landrieu
• ‘What he said was insensitive as hell; it’s very offensive,’ … ‘Race is serious stuff. It’s not something you kid about.’ - Joe Biden
• ‘…the GOP must decide whether Lott ‘represents the views of the majority of Republicans in the Senate and in our country.‘ - Hillary Clinton
• ‘We need political leaders who are healers, not dividers,’ … ‘I hope that Senator Lott’s apology will translate into action and that he will advance policies that bring us together as a nation rather than pull us apart.‘ - Dick Durbin
• ‘When connected to past comments and votes, this statement casts a dark shadow over Sen. Lott’s ability to be a credible party leader‘ - Diane Feinstein
• ‘Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat, described Lott’s comments as ‘outrageous’ and ‘completely inexcusable.’ ‘Those kinds of comments have no place in our society and should be repudiated by every American,’ Stabenow said in a statement. ‘At this point, the Republican caucus in the U.S. Senate needs to think long and hard about the kind of values they want their leadership to represent.‘ - Debbie Stabenow

Lott's comments are MUCH, MUCH more offensive than Reid's.

Maybe I misunderstood you...

What I meant to say was that if the exact same comment was made, but it was made not by Reid but by a Republican, I'd like to think that I'd hold the same opinion about the comment. And if there were a thread about that comment and I felt inclined to post in that thread, I'd like to think that my post would be similar to the ones I've made here.

They actually aren't - but thats not what the left will say to save their leader.

If Reid's comments weren't offensive, why did he run to call the race hustlers?

I think Trent Lott just "misspoke"

Trent Lot was wishing a 100 year old man a happy birthday at a PUBLIC party and made an offhand comment that it would have been nice if he had been elected when he ran for president back in the days when Algore's father VOTED for segregation and to uphold Jim Crow laws.

Only the left in their 'everything is race' mode can make the case that Lott was saying "If only we could have segregated our population" instead of "Hey you old man, let me say something nice to you because you're going to be dead in about a week."



So here's Lott with a Birthday wish that he had no intentions of having the slightest inference to race being forced to resign as Rebulican majority leader. ( While completely giving a pass to Strom Thurmond who was the guy who actually used to believe in segregation )

And here's Reid who uses the word Negro and has to apologize 2 years later when someone finds out what he said and the left can't excuse it enough even to the point of making a completely racist conclusion that this country would not elect a dark skinned black man.



Now which party is the party of race baiting, lies and power grabbing obfuscation?

jesus fucking christ if sarah palin had said this she would have been absolutely crucified and you guys know this.

Saying you wanted a segregationist Dixicrat to win but not because you support segregation is like saying you read Playboy for the articles.

Obviously she'd be crucified. Are we having a conversation about the media or are we talking about the actual content of what people said?

I'm talking about people's, not just the media's, reactions to what was said and how ridiculously hypocritical people are being about it. and it's not the "media's" reaction to the comment, it's harry reid's party's reaction to the comment I'm talking about. it's balls out blatant hypocrisy and you guys are trying your best to skirt that.


question: do you think harry reid should step down?

No skirting there.



No, of course not.

I don't think Lott should have stepped down either. But do you not understand why certain people would want to call for him to step down even if they don't really think his comments are all that bad?

Clearly politicians on the other side are going to feign outrage. Clearly people in them media are going to feign outrage to make the story bigger and sell whatever it is they sell. I don't care about those people or their reactions all that much. I'm more interested in what actual people care about what he said. I'm interested in people who aren't intimately entangled in politics.

I'm not intimately entangled in politics and my opinion is that people need to calm the fuck down over this shit. not everything is immediately about race. I just love the press:

"OMG he said the word negro ... HE'S A RACIST"

GTFOH

The moral of the story - only democrats can say anything remotely racist and get away with it

I agree with BG that Lott's comments were overblown too.





Yeah but she's an idiot. If she said it, it would be just another example of what an idiot she is.

But why did he say the word negro? Who says that? Could you say that in public without feeling really weird about it? It just has so much stigma attached to it that its very strange for him to use it.

Yes, he was born in the 30s, and probably grew up saying it so its something of a habit, but by 2010 you'd think he would have caught on that we don't use that word any more.

Ok so more proof Harry Reid is an idiot

Old people.



I suppose being in politics should mean he is more aware of politically correct speech, but I'm sure most of us know a few people who use a few politically incorrect terms just because that's just the way things were for them.

Is this statement claiming Harry Reid is not an idiot? Because I think that is what you are saying.

Palin vs. Reid: you put your money on Palin in anything other than a swimsuit competition?

Well this will start a whole different debate, and not who has better thighs.

Does intelligence (strictly IQ) determine who has a better capacity to run parts of the nation.

I would argue that there is a fat pitch are of intelligence that would be best apt to manage governmental agencies.

For instance, I would not want someone with a 160 IQ running our country the same as I would not want someone with a 100 IQ.

I'm sure at the next Light Skinned Negros with no Accents Harry Reid fundraiser dinner this topic will be largely ignored.

The hypocrisy knows no bounds!

Ability to make decisions that don't destroy this country's health care system contest would be a lock for Palin also.

As would an ability to get a tan contest

And Who's taken fewer bribes? contest.

surely it does not.

My grandma still says negro and my grandpa did too until the day he died. he meant no offense, it was just the term he was brought up with.

Also, isn't there a United Negro College Fund ... or did they change the name with the times.

Dammit. Why couldn't you have disagreed so we could have had a fun argument.

Anyone remember this from Bloom County:

Mom: That's the most adorable little colored girl playing outside.

Steve: "Colored"? You're saying "colored people" in 1988? You know better, Ma.

Mom: Then why the "National Association for Colored People? I don't think Negroes mind at all.

Steve: Don't say "Negroes," Ma! You can't say "Negroes"!

Mom: Can I say "United Negro College Fund"?

Steve: You are baiting me, Ma!

Dad: That's it. We're leaving.

Mom: Stay put, Reginald. "Mister Socially Sensitive"isn't finished shaming his parents into enlightenment.

Steve: Everybody just calm down. Let's agree to use the the New-Age term "People of Color."

Mom: People of Color?

Steve: People of Color.

Mom: Colored people.

Steve: NO!!