In a sit-down interview at the White House with CNN Political Contributor Roland Martin, President Obama defended embattled Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for describing Obama as "light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
"This is a good man who has always been on the right side of history," the president said in an interview taped Monday for TV One.
"For him to have used some inartful language in trying to praise me, and for people to try to make hay out of that, makes absolutely no sense," Obama said. "He's apologized, recognizing that he didn't use appropriate language. But there was nothing mean-spirited in what he had to say and he's always been on the right side of the issues."
In the interview, Obama also described Reid as "a friend of mine" who has "been a stalwart champion of voting rights, civil rights."
The president's vote of confidence - in Monday's interview and in an official statement over the weekend - comes one week before Senate Democrats return to Capitol Hill to flesh out a final health care reform bill. Obama told Martin that Reid "is spending a lot of his political capital in the middle of an election year to provide health care to every American."
"That's going to have a great impact and African-Americans and Latinos around the country," Obama noted.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - hugely unpopular at home in Nevada - is being skewered on the national stage for controversial comments he made about then candidate-Obama.
In the new book "Game Change" - Reid is quoted as saying Obama could succeed as a black candidate in part because of his light-skinned appearance... and speaking without a "Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
Reid has since gone on an apology tour - saying he's sorry to anyone who would listen: the president, plus several top African-American political figures... including members of congress, the head of the NAACP, civil rights leaders, etc.
President Obama accepted the apology "without question"... and top Democrats are defending Reid. No doubt they'd like the whole thing to just go away so the country can focus on issues like health care - instead of the party's own issues.
But several Republicans are calling on Reid to step down from his leadership position in the senate. They're comparing his comments to ones that cost former Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott his LEADERSHIP job.
Meanwhile - Reid is facing an uphill battle just to keep his job as senator. A new poll shows only one-third of Nevada voters have a favorable opinion of him... 52-percent have a negative view of the four-term senator. And - that poll was taken before these comments surfaced.
Reid says he deeply regrets his "poor choice of words"... points to the work he's done for blacks... and insists he has no plans to step down.
Here’s my question to you: Is Sen. Harry Reid's political career over?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Brian from Las Vegas writes:
As a Nevadan, I can tell you the climate here is that Harry Reid's newly revealed poor choice of words is yet another issue in a long list of issues that will cost Harry Reid his senate seat. While Nevadans were once proud that the senator worked his way up as the majority leader, he has since ignored his home state and instead entrenched himself in partisan politics instead of solutions. That will be his ultimate demise.
Vince from Waterford, Pennsylvania writes:
Harry Reid is a jackass for many reasons, this is not one of them. In this case he simply spoke the politically incorrect truth, and we're all aghast. Barack Obama would not have received as much of the "white vote" if he was "darker", had "blacker features" or spoke with a "negro accent". Unfortunately, if he was "blacker," some white voters would have been turned off. That is the truth, ugly as it might be. Is this right? Hell no! But in our society, it is true. Yes, it's politically incorrect, and God forbid if a politician speaks a non-PC truth.
Don from Mobile, Alabama writes:
He seemed to be in trouble in his home state prior to the dustup over his comments about candidate Obama. The hypocritical, racist GOP conservative base smells blood in the water. They are, of course, using this incident to further their goal of regaining that seat for themselves. Why is anyone surprised? It is called politics.
Carol writes:
Why are you making such a big deal about this? What he said is true. I am a light-skinned African-American. People tell me I sound like a white girl. People have been saying this to me since the 1980s! Who cares?
Bob from Thousand Oaks, California writes:
Mr. Reid made an unfortunate mistake. He has apologized and his apology his been accepted by the President. Having been in public service for 40 years, I know how hard it is to always say the right thing, and when you blow it you hope people can put it in context and forgive you.
Yes, the Senate leader’s “light-skinned” comments about Obama were uncomfortable. But that’s because he spoke the truth about white attitudes—a truth even Colin Powell concedes.
There’s nothing Americans love more than demanding “honest talk” about race and then kicking the teeth out of anyone who engages in it. Thus the tale of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is now in political purgatory because he told authors Mark Halperin and John Heilemann that white people were more open to voting for Barack Obama because he’s “light-skinned” and has “no Negro dialect.” Reid’s use of the word “Negro” was, to be sure, unpleasantly retro. But everything else about his statement is undeniably correct. Political scientists have proved it. Famous African Americans have testified to it. So now Reid must be punished, because he said things about the contours of white racism that you’re not supposed to say, except behind closed doors, where everyone knows that they’re true.
First, skin color. White people (and perhaps African Americans and other minorities as well) are more likely to vote for lighter-skinned blacks. In 2007, when Harvard’s Jennifer Hochschild and the University of Virginia’s Vesla Weaver surveyed every African-American governor, senator and member of Congress since 1865, they found that light-skinned blacks were dramatically overrepresented as a share of the black population. Similarly, they found that when light-skinned blacks run for office, they win at higher rates than their darker-skinned brethren.
But how do we know that this particular species of racism informs people’s view of Obama? Because in 2009, Eugene Caruso of the University of Chicago, Emily Balcetis of New York University and Nicole Mead of Tilburg University in the Netherlands proved it. They showed three pictures of Obama—one lightened, one darkened and one undoctored—to people who planned to vote for him, and to people who did not. The Obama voters were significantly more likely to claim that the lightened photo was the real one. The McCain voters were more likely to claim that the darkened photo was.
How about “black” speech patterns? Yet again, social science is on Reid’s side. In 1999, Thomas Purnell of the University of Wisconsin, William Idsardi of the University of Delaware, and John Baugh of Stanford had people answer apartment-rental ads in the San Francisco area using a variety of dialects. The callers who “sounded black” were substantially less likely to secure an appointment to see the apartment than those who “sounded white.”
Is any of this really a surprise, in a country where the extent of one’s blackness, as well as the fact of one’s blackness, has been the basis of oppression for centuries? In the antebellum South, states like Louisiana even maintained special legal categories for “quadroons” and “octoroons,” blacks whose mixed-race ancestry allowed them rights denied their “full-blooded” brethren. And as African Americans generally understand better than whites, that legacy remains alive today. When asked in 1995 why white people liked him so much, Colin Powell replied that “I speak reasonably well, like a white person,” and, visually, “I ain’t that black.”
So if what Reid said was palpably true, why is he in so much trouble? Yes, his use of the word “negro” was unattractive. But overall, his statement was less an example of white racism than an analysis of white racism. He dared to discuss an aspect of race prejudice that people generally find too toxic to publicly discuss. But it should be publicly discussed. Because amid the triumphalism that has followed Barack Obama’s election—the insistence, particularly on the right, that his election proves that racism has all but died out—it is worth remembering that while Obama’s election constitutes racial progress, it is also, peculiarly, testament to how far America still has to go.
Douglas Wilder, an African-American political trailblazer, sounded off Sunday about controversial remarks made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid during the 2008 presidential campaign which were not disclosed until the recent publication of a book chronicling the historic White House race.
Journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann reported the remarks in their new book, "Game Change," which is scheduled to be in bookstores Tuesday.
The authors quote Reid as saying privately that Obama, as a black candidate, could be successful thanks, in part, to his "light-skinned" appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
In a statement to CNN Saturday, Reid said, "I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words."
"I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans for my improper comments.”
Asked about Reid’s comments, Virginia Democrat Douglas Wilder, who became the first African-American to be elected governor of a state 20 years ago, took issue with Reid’s assumptions about race relations. “We’re not where he thought we may have been a year ago,” Wilder said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.
“We crossed that threshold 20 years ago,” Wilder said making a reference to his own historic election as Virginia’s chief executive in 1989.
“The unfortunate thing, John,” Wilder told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King, “is that one snippet ... by Harry Reid illustrates the need for a more open discussion about race and put it where it belongs – into the closet. [President] Obama wasn’t elected because he was – or was not – of any color. He represented a change. He represented a fastening of the dreams and the aspirations of the American people to someone who could bring about change.”
Saying he would have liked to have thought his own election as Virginia’s governor would have put to rest any concerns about an African-American candidate’s race, Wilder also said Sunday that he was “saddened … to see that 20 years later there still is that degree of apprehension on behalf of some people who are in leadership positions.”
Though he was critical of Reid for the recently reported comments, Wilder said he disagreed with the suggestion Sunday from Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee’s first African-American Chairman, that Reid should step down.
And, on the eve of Obama’s first anniversary in office, Wilder also said he thought it was too early to assess the nation’s first African-American president.
“I think it’s too early to even give a grade,” Wilder told King. “Because I think the Obama administration inherited a tremendous amount of problems – not just one. And every day things change.”
“It takes a year or two to get your sea legs, to get your feet under you,” Wilder said pointing to his own tenure as Virginia’s governor. “I had some degree of executive experience. Obama’s had none at all.”
But, Wilder added that he thought Obama was on his way to developing into the kind of president who knows how to wield the power of the nation’s most powerful office.
Senior advisers for Sen. Harry Reid say he won’t resign as majority leader over comments he made about Barack Obama — and that Republican attacks on Reid will give them the opportunity to solidify Democrat support by arguing that he's the victim of a partisan witchhunt.
“The more you have in terms of criticism from Republicans, the more likely it is that it is just a political pile-on,” a senior Reid adviser told POLITICO Sunday.
The calculus could always change if more revelations emerge or if Democrats begin to call for Reid to step down. But Reid’s advisers expect neither of those situations to play out, believing that support has been solidified on the left and that they can weather the storm in Washington – and will have to turn the focus in his Nevada reelection campaign to jobs and the economy.
Republicans attacked Reid in force Sunday, with RNC Chairman Michael Steele, who is black, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) all calling on Reid to step down and comparing his remarks to those that led to the downfall of Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) in 2002.
But since Republicans have no power to remove Reid from his position, the majority leader remain in place unless he decides to step down voluntarily or Democratic senators turn against him. Neither seems likely.
“He has no intention of stepping down as majority leader,” Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. “Unlike others who advocate moving our nation backwards, and viewing this moment for political gain, he’s working, today, tomorrow and the next day to move our country forward.”
“Mr. Steele and Sen. Cornyn want Reid out because they know they can’t beat Reid” in November, Manley said.
Reid has moved quickly to show contrition after a new book, "Game Change" by journalists John Heilemann and Mark Halperin revealed that he made comments in 2008 suggesting that Barack Obama could be elected president because he is “light skinned” and lacks “Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”
Embarrassed by the remarks and already facing a tough climb to reelection in the fall, Reid has reached out to the African American community, apologizing for his comments and highlighting his legislative record of backing civil rights issues important to the black community. He immediately won a showing of support from prominent Democratic black leaders, including the president, who accepted his apology and said he’s seen the “passionate leadership he’s shown on issues of social justice and I know what’s in his heart. As far as I’m concerned, the book is closed.”
But Reid continues to face slumping approval ratings back home – and losing his spot as majority leader would certainly imperil his reelection bid, where he is making the case that he is the most powerful legislator in the Senate.
Reid spent Sunday at his home in the mining town of Searchlight, Nev., continuing to make phone calls and also working to bridge a compromise between the House and Senate on health care.
But back in Washington, his advisers expected him to avoid the fate of Lott, who in 2002 was weeks away from taking command as majority leader until he made clumsy remarks at the 100th birthday party for then-Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), the late Dixiecrat who had run for president in 1948 on a pro-segregation platform.
Senior Reid advisers – who were caught off-guard by Saturday’s disclosure of the senator’s comments – believe that the majority leader is in a much better position politically than Lott, who in his 2002 comments first identified with Thurmond's candidacy as a fellow Southerner and then added, "If the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."
Much as Lott apologized later for remarks he said were not meant to be racially insensitive, he was ultimately forced to step down by his Republican colleagues. Conservatives complain now that a double standard is helping Reid, but it was Republicans themselves who chose to push Lott out, and among Democrats, Reid has three big advantages the Mississippian did not have.
First is the president himself. While the Bush White House provided little or no help to Lott at the time, Obama has already come to Reid's assistance. Soon after the news broke Saturday, the president issued a strong statement accepting Reid's apology Saturday.
President George W. Bush, by contrast, said in 2002 that Lott's comments did "not reflect the spirit of our country," explaining that "any suggestion that the segregated past was acceptable or positive is offensive, and it is wrong." Lott later wrote in his book, “Herding Cats,” that Bush’s public comments about the matter were “devastating” and that many on his staff had “grown certain that some powerful Bush staffers had launched a power play to replace me as Senate majority leader.”
Second, Reid is able to tap into support among African-American leaders because of his record on civil rights. Lott was in the opposite position since he was widely viewed as to the right of his own Mississippi Republican colleague, Sen. Thad Cochran, on civil rights and had opposed the creation of a federal holiday to honor Martin Luther King.
Third, there is no clear rival in the Senate to challenge Reid and the uproar now comes in the middle of a Congress when he has been working closely with the White House on its top legislative priority: health care reform.
Lott, who didn’t return a phone call Sunday, got into trouble at the end of a Congress, where there is a dearth of news. Reid's problems come in the middle of the health care debate --where he is crucial to securing a deal --but also at a time when people are more worried about other news, like terrorism attacks and the economy.
Plus in Lott’s case, there were already divisions in the GOP leadership, and Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who replaced Lott, was able to capitalize on this unhappiness and well as his own successful stint as chairman of the party's campaign committee in the 2002 elections.
By comparison, Reid's political problems are more in Nevada than in his caucus.
If his colleagues were to dump him as leader, it would hurt them and could certainly cause them to lose a pivotal seat in November.
Moreover, one of the Senate's most aggressive political personalities, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), appears genuinely close to Reid, who has given him opportunities Schumer never enjoyed under the prior Democratic leader, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.). Anyone challenging Reid would have to contend then with Schumer, who retains significant influence with newer Democrats elected during his two tours as the party's campaign chairman. Plus, Reid has generated good will from Democrats and is deeply trusted for the deals he’s struck with them in his four terms in the Senate.
Still, Reid’s opponents in his Nevada race have no plans of letting the controversy die away – with three GOP opponents, former state GOP chair Sue Lowden, Las Vegas businessman Danny Tarkanian and former state legislator Sharron Angle each excoriating the majority leader for his comments.
“Sen. Reid's approval numbers are at their lowest point ever - these comments won't just alienate African Americans, they could alienate anyone who believes in equality and fairness regardless of race, sex or religion,” said Ryan Erwin, a senior GOP strategist in Nevada. “I think the repercussions with the electorate could be huge, but it would also be interesting to see how African American members of Congress will deal with him.
“How will Asian, Hispanic and female members of Congress deal with this?”
While Reid’s advisers admit that the senator’s comments were clumsy and inarticulate, they argue strenuously that Reid has been forceful in integrating the Las Vegas strip, has pushed for diversity on the judiciary and worked hard for the election of the first black president, as “Game Change" shows.
“Remember the context of the story that Halperin was telling: Sen. Reid wanted Obama to run,” said Brandon Hall, Reid’s campaign manager. “Reid believed the country was ready to elect an African American president, and he was right. This story documents that.”
Top Republicans called for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to step aside Sunday — and accused the Democrats and the media of holding the GOP to a double standard on matters of race.
In an interview with POLITICO, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (R-Texas) said it would be "entirely appropriate" for the Nevada Democrat to relinquish his leadership post over comments about Barack Obama's skin color and lack of a "Negro dialect."
And like Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele and Senate GOP Whip Jon Kyl — both of whom also called for Reid's resignation Sunday — Cornyn suggested that any Republican who said what Reid said would be under attack from Democrats, leading African-Americans and the media.
“There’s a big double standard here,” Steele said during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“What’s interesting here, is when Democrats get caught saying racist things, an apology is enough. If that had been [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) saying that about an African-American candidate for president of the president of the United States, trust me, this chairman and the [Democratic National Committee] would be screaming for his head, very much as they were with Trent Lott.”
Lott lost his leadership post in 2002 after saying that the country would have been better off if Sen. Strom Thurmond — a Segregationist — had been elected president in 1948.
The comments — or at least the interpretations of them — were obviously different: While Lott words could be interpreted as a call for the continuation of racial segregation, Reid's were not an argument for race-based policies but rather a characterization of racial attitudes among voters today.
Still, Steele said: “There has to be a consequence here if the standard is the one set in 2002 with Trent Lott.”
Kyl (Ariz.), the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, echoed Steele’s complaints about a “double standard” for Democrats.
“I agree with Michael Steele's comments that there is a double standard,” Kyl said on Fox News Sunday.”
“If [Lott] should resign, then Harry Reid should. If they apologize and you know what is in their heart, my feeling is they shouldn't. But in this case, [Reid] should.”
Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign relinquished his leadership post last year after admitting that he had an affair with a staffer, but neither Kyl nor Cornyn has called on him to give up his Senate seat.
In the day since Reid's comments were first reported, the majority leader has reached out to black leaders for support — and gotten it.
Reid called Obama on Saturday to apologize to the president directly for his statement, made during an interview for the new book, “Game Change.”
The book quotes Reid, who backed Obama’s candidacy, as saying that Obama is "light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
"Harry Reid called me today and apologized for an unfortunate comment reported today,” Obama said in a statement released on Saturday. “I accepted Harry's apology without question because I've known him for years, I've seen the passionate leadership he's shown on issues of social justice and I know what's in his heart. As far as I am concerned, the book is closed."
House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), the highest-ranking African-American in Congress, came out in support of Reid, as did Nevada Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, the top black politician in Reid’s home state.
Al Sharpton, the vocal civil rights leader who has inserted himself in the middle of many of the biggest racial fights over the past 25 years, said that while Reid “did not select the best word choice in this instance,” the Nevada Democrat should not be forced to step aide.
And D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat and an African-American, is warning Republicans against trying to make hay out of Reid’s comments.
The nonvoting member of Congress said Reid's opponents “will not find a welcome mat in the black community” if they try to seize on the Nevada Democrat’s remarks.
Reid has also reached out to Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus and other influential African-Americans, including Donna Brazile, Julian Bond and Wade Henderson.
With top African Americans supporting Reid or saying nothing, he has been able to avoid — up until this point — having the furor become a full-fledged media firestorm.
“The difference between Lott and Reid is that Democratic members of Congress are not calling on Reid to step down, especially CBC members,” said a GOP insider involved in the Lott scandal. “That’s what drives the media. Is he safe or not safe? But if members are not calling on [Reid] to step down, that won’t drive the media.”
Reid’s office quietly circulated talking points over the weekend on the majority leader’s record on racial issues and social justice.
Reid’s aides said the majority leader “has always been a friend to Nevada's African-American community, and as Nevada families struggle in these difficult times, his leadership is needed now more than ever.” They highlighted Reid’s support for the $787 billion economic stimulus bill, health care reform, expanded college loans and HIV/AIDS funding, all of which were key issues to minority groups, as well as his high career ratings from the NAACP.
In addition, Reid backers pointed out that Reid has run an internship program for the past five years with Howard University, a leading black college in Washington, D.C., designed to provide more diversity in Senate staffing.
Lott came under fire in December 2002 after saying, at a birthday celebration for Thurmond that his home state of Mississippi had supported him in1948 and was "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," Lott said.
Unlike Reid, Lott initially refused to apologize for his comments, which were seized on by the blogosphere and by Democratic critics, including the then-chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Terry McAuliffe.
While Obama quickly put out a statement backing Reid, the top African-Americans in the Bush administration, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, did not publicly back Lott, despite private pleas from the Mississippi Republican for help. Then Education Secretary Roderick Paige, an African-American, also refused to support Lott.
Although Lott went on Black Entertainment Television to try to quell the furor, his appearance was unsuccessful in stanching the outrage. President George W. Bush and other top White House officials, as well as his Senate GOP rivals, including former Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee, seeing an opportunity to bring Lott down, did not publicly back him either, and Lott ultimately resigned his leadership post. Frist then took over as majority leader.
Lott was reelected to the top ranks of Senate Republicans four years later, before he resigned in 2007 to become a lobbyist.
The program was extremely interesting (as always) however if you missed it never fear, I have it embedded below for your viewing pleasure.
Chris asked both Party Chairmen about Sen. Harry Reid's recent apology stemming from his Racist "No Negro Dialect" comments uttered during the 2008 Presidential race.
No one asked why Harry Reid waited an entire year (an election year) to apologize but that's another blog post.
Tim Kaine tried to brush it off as if Reid's comments were acceptable just because Pres. Obama stated on Saturday "the book is closed".
Well of course Michael Steele jumped right on Kaine's response by stating the Democrats seem to have a Double Standard when it comes to how inappropriate remarks are handled.
Steele mentioned how harshly Trent Lott was handled.
Trent Lott should have most certainly been punished but wait a minute!
Even after Wilson apologized (somewhat) he was still formally rebuked.
Yet Harry Reid's comments are overlooked with a simple apology??
So because Harry Reid pushed forth the Dems' Health Care Reform agenda (without a much needed Public Option) and because Pres. Obama still doesn't want to have a conversation about Racial Discrimination (again), the entire Black Race is supposed to ignore Reid's disturbing comments?
Something is wrong with this picture and I don't think so!!
For Tim Kaine to think that what Harry Reid said wasn't that bad suggests he too believes Lighter-Skinned Black people are Superior to Darker-Skinned Black People.
Let me take it deeper, does Harry Reid and Pres. Obama also believe Lighter-Skinned Black people are Superior to Darker-Skinned Black People??
That type of Stereotypical Mentality was taught to slaves by a Slave Owner centuries ago by the name of Willie Lynch and kept the Black Race divided until this day.
My Mother is extremely Light-Skinned, with Brown eyes and hair that isn't kinky but wavy because her great, great father was Caucasian. (Yes it was a forced sexual experience probably akin to deceased SC U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond's situation)
My Father who is now deceased as of 2003, was part Native American Indian and Black.
Due to my Father's Indian heritage his hair was almost as straight as Caucasian hair but....he was Dark-Skinned.
This "hodge podge" of Genes, Races and Cultures caused me to be born with a Medium-Brown complexion, Wavy, Curly Hair (NOT Kinky) which requires NO Chemicals, Nor a Straightening Comb to smooth it out and light-brown colored eyes.
Do these physical features make me "Superior" to Black people who are very Dark-Skinned, have Black eyes or Kinky hair?
I am now the Mother of two handsome sons.
My eldest son is Brown-Skinned, has Black eyes and almost Kinky hair.
My youngest son is Light Brown-Skinned, with Brown eyes and Straight hair.
Does that make my youngest "Superior" to my eldest son?
In addition I was born in Brooklyn, New York but now reside in Charlotte, NC
Does this mean I'm "Superior" to Blacks who were born in the South?
NO of course NOT!!
Yet this type of "Superior" Racially Divisive thinking is what Willie Lynch taught Slaves to believe.
Such Ignorance has created barriers within the Black race to this day and has caused some Blacks to be treated more so favorable by White America.
You know like how favorable Pres. Barack Obama has been treated by White America and the press.
Let's be real if Barack Obama were Darker-Skinned (like Michelle) and wasn't half-White, he would NOT have been nominated or elected whether anyone else in the Democratic Party wishes to be real on this matter or not.
Sometimes the truth hurts but it will set you Free!
When Harry Reid made those Racist comments, he made them NOT just to President Obama but his comments were made against an entire Ethnic group whether any Democrat Congressional member wishes to admit it or not.
On the flip side while I don't believe Senator Harry Reid is a Racist at heart and should not resign, he STILL made those comments.
This serious issue is NOT and should NOT be about Partisan politics.
Reid's negative, Racist comments largely affected an entire Ethnic group (Black People) who are STILL being largely Oppressed in a Free Country!
Even Pres. Obama himself recently admitted during an interview with April Ryan of American Urban Radio Network, that "Blacks are usually the last hired and first fired".
In fact if Harry Reid were NOT a member of Congress but instead were just a regular employee on a regular job and made such Racist comments, he would have been fired or sued by the EEOC!
How was Reid able to make those comments and remain in his role as Senate Majority Leader while Trent Lott and Joe Wilson were harshly disciplined?
I believe that Trent Lott, Joe Wilson and Harry Reid should ALL have been harshly reprimanded!
This unresolved situation is all Pres. Obama's fault.
How so?
1) When U.S. A.G. Eric Holder said Americans are "Cowards" when it comes to conversations about Racism, Pres. Obama publicly denounced Holder's statements and brushed Racism under the rug.
2) When Harvard Professor Henry "Skip" Gates was arrested last year (due to Racial Profiling), it was the perfect time for Pres. Obama to address Racial Discrimination in America and for U.S. A.G. Eric Holder's Office to re-examine Equality laws.
Instead Pres. Obama chose to once again brush everything under the rug and have a "Beer Summit".
Furthermore I don't think any White Voters would have practiced "White Flight" if his administration decided to really enforce Equality laws or address Racial Profiling.
What happened?
Because Pres. Obama as a Leader has never handled the issue of Racism correctly, it once again reared its ugly head.
This time in the form of Sen. Reid apologizing a year later for his Racist comments.
So there you have it.
Michael Steele was correct when he said that Democrats have a Double Standard when it comes to handling Racist Remarks.
When GOP Lawmakers practice Racism they are crucified.
However here's the $64M remaining question I'm posing...
Why does Pres. Barack Obama appear to be afraid to address the destructive issue of Racial Discrimination in America?
If Obama is afraid of losing his White Voters, too late!
Most of Obama's White Voters are already jumping ship because during his first year in Office he focused on pleasing Wall Street instead of creating Job Growth for Middle Class, Less Educated and Lower Income Voters.
You know the "Common Folk" who went to the Polls for him back in November 2008.
The Democrats are now preparing to address Illegal Immigration.
How can Democrats enact effective Illegal Immigration Reform legislation if Pres. Obama is afraid to tackle Racial Discrimination?
Looks like Pres. Obama needs to stop listening to Mayor Richard Daley, Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers and Tim Geithner for advice and follow his own heart if....
He wants the Democrats to remain in control
That's right I said Stop listening to Mayor Richard Daley, Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers and Tim Geithner!
Their footprints are all over Obama's first year Administration decisions, from catering to Wall Street, his Stimulus Package, the "Beer Summit", his 2016 Olympics Bid, handling Foreclosures, Health Care Reform, Education, "Green Jobs", etc.,
Three Million Americans lost their jobs in 2009 and the best Obama's Administration can come up with is a "Green Jobs" program that ONLY creates about 17,000 Jobs!
Please!
What about creating Jobs for Huge Infrastructure projects too?
Senator Reid called Obama Saturday afternoon to apologize for the racially insensitive remarks.
"Harry Reid called me today and apologized for an unfortunate comment reported today," Obama said in a statement.
"I accepted Harry's apology without question because I've known him for years, I've seen the passionate leadership he's shown on issues of social justice and I know what's in his heart. As far as I am concerned, the book is closed."
Reid, who waited to formally endorse Obama until after the tough presidential primary battle ended in 2008, is facing an uphill re-election fight this year in his home state.
An aide to the senator told CNN that Reid offered apologies to several prominent African-Americans, including House Democrats Jim Clyburn of South Carolina and Barbara Lee of California; the Rev. Al Sharpton; CNN political contributor and Democratic strategist Donna Brazile; NAACP chairman Julian Bond; and the head of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Wade Henderson.
Today Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) apologized for referring to President Barack Obama as “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect” in private conversations during the 2008 presidential campaign.
“I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words,” said Reid in a statement. “I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans for my improper comments.”
Saturday is my favorite day to read the newspaper. That’s the day reporters and editors print stories they know they have to cover but don’t want to get wide attention. The latest evidence for this theory is the Washington Post’s treatment of the revelation of remarks made by Sen. Harry Reid during the 2008 Presidential campaign:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) apologized today for referring to President Barack Obama as “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect” in private conversations during the 2008 presidential campaign.
“I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words,” said Reid in a statement. “I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans for my improper comments.”
Poor choice of words? Exactly what other combination of words could Sen. Reid have used to convey his point? And what, exactly, was his point anyway? What was the relevance of these observations? We don’t have the full context for the remark in the Post’s reporting. It simply notes that Reid’s comments are revealed in a new book, “Game Change”, authored by reporters from Time and New York magazines.
Interesting that the two magazine reporters, Mark Halperin and John Heileman, have been sitting on their knowledge of Reid’s remarks for so long. Holding onto such a scoop to promote book sales would be understandable, except that the incident doesn’t even make it into the promotional blurb for the book. Just move along, nothing to see here.
Which got me thinking about Trent Lott.
You remember him, right? The former Mississippi Senator was Senate Majority Leader back in 2002. Attending a birthday party for then Sen. Strom Thurmond, Sen. Lott made an idiotic statement:
"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, either".
As you can imagine, a firestorm ensued. Kweisi Mfume, then President of the NAACP said that Lott’s remarks were:
"The kind of callous, calculated, hateful bigotry that has no place in the halls of Congress".
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) said:
"It was shocking…a piercing voice through the fabric of black America".
"I simply do not believe the country can today afford to have someone who has made these statements again and again be the leader of the United States Senate".
It will be curious to see if Sen. Kerry thinks the country can afford to have Sen. Reid as leader of the Senate.
Reid’s remarks also got me thinking about former Virginia Sen. George Allen. Running for reelection in 2006, the called out to a Democrat campaign operative at an event, calling him "Macacca", an obscure french-colonial insult, generally thought to mean “monkey.” (The operative was of Indian descent.)
The Washington Post, in particular, seized on Allen’s weird comment and made it a major issue in the Senator’s reelection. They fanned the flames of the controversy so much that the paper’s ombudsman felt the need to review its coverage, noting:
Did The Post overplay the incident? Not initially, but the coverage went on for too long after he apologized. The news stories, handled by the paper’s Virginia political reporters, did not go overboard. An editorial was well done. Then the columnists weighed in, along with Style reporters and editorial cartoonist Tom Toles. No one piece was over the line. But when you put it all together, it looked like piling on.
In edition to extensive coverage throughout its pages, the Post ran at least six front-stage stories on Allen’s remark.
Today, Reid’s remarks warrant only scant Saturday-edition coverage. I should probably take this as a good sign that we’ve apparently moved beyond the issue of race.
Sources: CNN, Big Government.com, Whitehouse.gov, Harper Collins
Today Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) apologized for referring to President Barack Obama as “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect” in private conversations during the 2008 presidential campaign.
“I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words,” said Reid in a statement. “I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans for my improper comments.”
Don't worry its just more Liberal Press hypocrisy. Read on....
Saturday is my favorite day to read the newspaper. That’s the day reporters and editors print stories they know they have to cover but don’t want to get wide attention. The latest evidence for this theory is the Washington Post’s treatment of the revelation of remarks made by Sen. Harry Reid during the 2008 Presidential campaign:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) apologized today for referring to President Barack Obama as “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect” in private conversations during the 2008 presidential campaign.
“I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words,” said Reid in a statement. “I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans for my improper comments.”
Poor choice of words? Exactly what other combination of words could Sen. Reid have used to convey his point? And what, exactly, was his point anyway? What was the relevance of these observations? We don’t have the full context for the remark in the Post’s reporting. It simply notes that Reid’s comments are revealed in a new book, “Game Change”, authored by reporters from Time and New York magazines.
Interesting that the two magazine reporters, Mark Halperin and John Heileman, have been sitting on their knowledge of Reid’s remarks for so long. Holding onto such a scoop to promote book sales would be understandable, except that the incident doesn’t even make it into the promotional blurb for the book. Just move along, nothing to see here.
Which got me thinking about Trent Lott.
You remember him, right? The former Mississippi Senator was Senate Majority Leader back in 2002. Attending a birthday party for then Sen. Strom Thurmond, Sen. Lott made an idiotic statement:
"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, either".
As you can imagine, a firestorm ensued. Kweisi Mfume, then President of the NAACP said that Lott’s remarks were:
"The kind of callous, calculated, hateful bigotry that has no place in the halls of Congress".
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) said:
"It was shocking…a piercing voice through the fabric of Black America".
"I simply do not believe the country can today afford to have someone who has made these statements again and again be the leader of the United States Senate".
It will be curious to see if Sen. Kerry thinks the country can afford to have Sen. Reid as leader of the Senate.
Reid’s remarks also got me thinking about former Virginia Sen. George Allen. Running for reelection in 2006, the called out to a Democrat campaign operative at an event, calling him "Macacca", an obscure french-colonial insult, generally thought to mean “monkey.” (The operative was of Indian descent.)
The Washington Post, in particular, seized on Allen’s weird comment and made it a major issue in the Senator’s reelection. They fanned the flames of the controversy so much that the paper’s ombudsman felt the need to review its coverage, noting:
Did The Post overplay the incident? Not initially, but the coverage went on for too long after he apologized. The news stories, handled by the paper’s Virginia political reporters, did not go overboard. An editorial was well done. Then the columnists weighed in, along with Style reporters and editorial cartoonist Tom Toles. No one piece was over the line. But when you put it all together, it looked like piling on.
In edition to extensive coverage throughout its pages, the Post ran at least six front-stage stories on Allen’s remark.
Today, Reid’s remarks warrant only scant Saturday-edition coverage. I should probably take this as a good sign that we’ve apparently moved beyond the issue of race.
The top Democrat in the U.S. Senate apologized on Saturday for comments he made about Barack Obama's race during the 2008 presidential bid which are quoted in a yet-to-be-released book about the campaign.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada described in private then-Sen. Obama as "light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." Obama is the nation's first African-American president.
"I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African-Americans for my improper comments," Reid said in a statement released after the excerpts were first reported on the Web site of The Atlantic magazine.
"I was a proud and enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama during the campaign and have worked as hard as I can to advance President Obama's legislative agenda."
Obama said in a statement he had spoken with Reid on Saturday afternoon and accepted the apology for what he termed an "unfortunate" comment. "I accepted Harry's apology without question because I've known him for years, I've seen the passionate leadership he's shown on issues of social justice and I know what's in his heart," said Obama. "As far as I am concerned, the book is closed."
Reid remained neutral during the bitter Democratic primary campaign that became a marathon contest between Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom Obama tapped as Secretary of State after the election.
Reid's comments are included in the book, obtained Saturday by The Associated Press and set to be published on Monday. "Game Change" was written by Time Magazine's Mark Halperin and New York magazine's John Heilemann.
The book also says Reid urged Obama to run, perceiving the first-term senator's impatience.
"You're not going to go anyplace here," Reid told Obama of the Senate. "I know that you don't like it, doing what you're doing."
Palin "doesn't know anything"
In another section, aides to Republican nominee Sen. John McCain described the difficulties they faced with their vice presidential pick, then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Steve Schmidt, a senior member of McCain's campaign team, is quoted telling Palin's foreign policy tutors: "You guys have a lot of work to do. She doesn't know anything."
The authors also quote Obama's initial reaction to McCain's selection of a little-known governor: "Wow. Well, I guess she's change."
Vice presidential nominee Joe Biden was direct. "Who's Sarah Palin?" the book quotes the then-senator as asking as they left the nominating convention in Denver.
Reid, facing a tough 2010 re-election bid, needs the White House's help if he wants to keep his seat. Obama's administration has dispatched officials on dozens of trips to buoy his bid and Obama has raised money for his campaign.
Recognizing the threat, Reid's apologies also played to his home state: "Moreover, throughout my career, from efforts to integrate the Las Vegas strip and the gaming industry to opposing radical judges and promoting diversity in the Senate, I have worked hard to advance issues."
Even before his ill-considered remarks were reported, a new survey released Saturday by the Las Vegas Review Journal showed Reid continuing to earn poor polling numbers. In the poll, by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, Reid trailed former state Republican party chairwoman Sue Lowden by 10 percentage points, 50 percent to 40 percent, and also lagging behind two other opponents.
More than half of Nevadans had an unfavorable opinion of Reid. Just 33 percent of respondents held a favorable opinion.
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
