The Beltway's National Enquirer

The reason there is such a complete merger of interest among low-life tabloids, Matt Drudge, reality shows and the Washington political press corps is precisely because they are indeed indistinguishable -- merged. -- Glenn Greenwald

The old saying is that "politics is show business for ugly people." The new book by Mark Halperin and John Heileman proves this as well as anything recently has. Glenn Greenwald writes:

No event in recent memory has stimulated the excitement and interest of Washington political reporters like the release of Mark Halperin and John Heilemann's new book, Game Change, and that reaction tells you all you need to know about our press corps. [. . .] The book is little more than royal court gossip, churned out by the leading practitioner of painfully sycophantic, Drudge-mimicking cattiness: Time's Mark Halperin. And all of the courtiers, courtesans, court spokespeople (i.e., "journalists") and hangers-on who populate our decadent little Versailles on the Potomac can barely contain their glee over the opportunity to revel in this self-absorbed sleaze.

Indeed, one could well argue that the National Enquirer handles these matters with more dignity and honesty.

Speaking for me only

< Prop 8 Goes to Court in San Francisco Today | From The "Duh" File >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I saw those 2 earlier on da tube (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 08:47:34 AM EST
    Oy. They had the train wreck effect on me. Sleaze is an understatement.

    was that on morning hoe? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 09:05:36 AM EST
    I loved it when ODonnell told Joe he was intellectually dishonest for comparing Reid to Lott and Joe went ballistic.

    At least Lott could get away with saying (none / 0) (#3)
    by tigercourse on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 09:09:25 AM EST
    "I wasn't thinking about segregation" (which honestly might even be true) but what the heck kind of defense to does Reid have for "negro"?

    O'Donnell is a fine actor. As for his punditry... he's a fine actor.


    What in God's name was Lott talking about? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:31:26 AM EST
    Thurmond's campaign was totally about segregation. It had npo other reason for existing.

    What a shocking comment.


    How do you feel about the UNCF or the NAACP? (3.50 / 2) (#95)
    by Ellie on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 02:33:22 PM EST
    Would you recommend boycotting The United Negro College Fund or the National Association of Colored Persons until those outmoded orgs retitle themselves?

    How should I fill out my annual donation form without hurting your feelings?

    How about the Negro Leagues (Baseball) Hall of Fame?

    The "defense" Reid has is that he's an old man, that Negro is a neutral word today and was, at one time, considered respectful alternative to the widely used slur of n*.

    Rather than walk a mile to find outrage, I'd look at a person's age first and, secondly, who's all up in a bunch over it and trying to make political hay. (In this case, the gleeful stink bomb to draw attention to a sleazy book is far from a good enough reason to provide more stink for this bomb.)

    Terminology gets rewritten faster than everyone can get with the new program.

    As civil rights pioneer and collective bargaining pioneer (baseball star) Curt Flood Jr. said about his enemies and tormentors, "They called me everything but a child of God." (cf Flood's passionate and excellent book, Seasons in the Sun).

    I remember watching Justice Thurgood Marshall at a media appearance (regarding his retirement?) admonish a journalist mid-question for referring to him as black rather than African-American. When he snapped out that distinction, damn, I paid attention and so did everyone in the room. (The TV was on in the background and "black" was the widely used term, which had replaced Negro.)

    What's saddest to me about this whole ridiculous discussion of semantics is that the first black President -- yes, Hopey Changey who said the time wasn't right yet for "divisive" HRC to lead but he Hoped it would Change by the time his little girls were grown up -- would probably also label someone as liberal as Marshall as too "divisive" to consider for the SCOTUS.


    UNCF and the NAACP, (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by brodie on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 03:00:04 PM EST
    check.  Why especially the latter org insists on not upgrading its name from the 19th century cringeworthy lingo is a puzzler to this non-AA, AWG observer.  Something about maintaining historic traditions, supposedly, but that seems like the sort of weak argument some anti-CR organizations like to trot out when they promote displays of the Confederate flag and similar.

    Agree too about Obama almost certainly not nominating someone as liberal as Justice T. Marshall.  That might take a little courage (but not that much) since it hasn't actually been done by a Dem president in 43 yrs and the party has gotten used to the center-left type being offered up, but so far Obama has failed to show he's willing to go other than the safe route, either on domestic or foreign matters.  


    Historical reminders shouldn't make anyone cringe (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Ellie on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 07:03:25 PM EST
    I like the self-evident qualities of longevity and tenacity carried within old-timey names like the UNCF and NAACP: they braved the worst of times, are still doing good work and don't intend to stop.

    The snazzy repackagers make me cringe more as they don't seem to know much (or care) about what they discard in preferring "inoffensive" generics. (YMMV)

    And besides, the African side of the hyphen will naturally phase out -- as will the Asian in Asian-American -- as people grow more familiar with distinct immigrant communities and, eg, recognize different turbans and head-covering.


    "Snazzy repackagers"? (none / 0) (#140)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 08:13:01 PM EST
    People self-identifying as they wish?

    So, girl, broad, and lots of other words not allowed here, did you snazzily repackage yourself -- and me -- as a woman?


    Girl or Woman isn't SNAZZY, but accurate (none / 0) (#142)
    by Ellie on Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 10:38:45 AM EST
    ... or affectionate / familiar. Someone in the workplace who doesn't know me well referring to me as a girl in order to diminish me in front of men will hear about it.

    Personally, I allow some generational slack if someone's not up to speed on the terminology du jour. [/shrug]

    I respect elders who aren't acting from malice.


    19th century? (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 07:38:06 PM EST

    And what, now white folks are going to tell black folks what to call themselves and their organizations?


    Agreed. (none / 0) (#141)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 08:14:12 PM EST
    Astonishing thread, isn't it?

    Btw, I'm a darned proud Hibernian, and nobody better tell me and my ethnic organization to drop that marvelous medieval term.


    those of us who live in "hope" (none / 0) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 03:03:16 PM EST
    hope he is saving that stuff for the second term.

    Context (3.66 / 3) (#100)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 02:56:30 PM EST
    you consider the source, the "spirit" in which the word is used and the historical context.

    You went with the trenchant instead of the Ellie Coltrane this time. I hope that isnt the beginning of TOO much of a trend.


    Er, why the unprovoked, gratuitous insult? (3.66 / 3) (#105)
    by Ellie on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 03:07:34 PM EST
    And why the troll-rating from the cowardly sher, who doesn't (as is polite to do so) explain her downgrade?

    Frankly, you two should be the LAST to attempt to label me as trollish/rude, or set a standard on good manners.


    Hey home girl, (none / 0) (#108)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 03:16:21 PM EST
    If you're talking to me, you completely misunderstood. I like the way you write.

    Oh well.


    Coltrane is ALWAYS (none / 0) (#112)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 03:34:10 PM EST
    a compliment in my (narrow, circumscribed, overly ambiguous) universe. Really.

    It's not the Coltrane part that's insulting n/t (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Ellie on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 04:36:52 PM EST
    The very word "Negro" is now (none / 0) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:25:26 AM EST
    a slur?  What on earth are you talking about?  Tell that to Martin Luther King.

    And on the contrary, the possibility that Trent Lott somehow didn't remember that Strom Thurmond ran for president on a segregationist platform is exactly zero.  And that's not even getting into Lott's long, long record on race.



    There's a reason people dont (3.50 / 2) (#52)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 11:04:58 AM EST
    use that word any more. Does this really need to be explained?

    On the other hand, context, which includes the history of the person making the comment, is almost everything.

    Which is why the unwritten rule is, that it's o.k for say, a Jewish comedian to make an ironic wisecrack about the Holocaust, while a pol with ties to the White Citizens Party immediately becomes suspect when they wax nostalgic about segregationist pols from days-gone-by.


    They don't? On the 2010 Census one can (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Radix on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 12:16:10 PM EST
    identify one's ethnicity as Negro. Also, from what I've heard, Thurgood Marshal used the term his entire life and he didn't pass until 1993.

    Yes, it does need to be explained. (none / 0) (#65)
    by JDM in NYC on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 11:44:08 AM EST
    What is the reason people don't use that word any more?

    It's GENERALLY not used (2.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 12:34:35 PM EST
    because of it's historical association with an era that MOST people would like to get beyond.

    Some older folk still use the relatively non-offensive term "colored"; that dosnt mean that the word dosnt have negative associations for a majority of AAs.

    Lets not be TOO culturally tone deaf, now.


    I happen to be old enough to remember (none / 0) (#80)
    by JDM in NYC on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 01:23:46 PM EST
    the change from "Negro" to "Black." When I was in high school in 1970, I took a course on Black literature that was taught by a fairly radical (for Indiana) AA man. One of the discussions in that class was about using "Negro" vs. using "Black." He said basically that using "Black" was part of a more in-your-face attitude being adopted by the 60s generation.

    Do you consider "Negro" to be more offensive than "colored?" What do you think about the phrase "person of color?"


    Pesonally (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 01:26:24 PM EST
    Do you consider "Negro" to be more offensive than "colored?" What do you think about the phrase "person of color?"

    I don't like it - everyone has some color, so this really means nothing.


    somewhere (none / 0) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 01:30:01 PM EST
    I still have that poster from the 60s/70s with the rainbow people and the caption "some of my best friends are colored"

    Thats a keeper! (none / 0) (#88)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 01:40:28 PM EST
    You should explain it at min. as acutely as the (none / 0) (#110)
    by Ellie on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 03:20:04 PM EST
    ... sense of outrage you have that apparently allows you to gratuitously insult people rather than answer their logical questions.

    Saying there's no need for explanation isn't good enough.


    But Lott (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:31:12 AM EST
    Wasn't forced to resign his Senate leadership position because of his record on race - it was because of his comment made at a birthday party.

    And yeah - go call and AA a "Negro" today and see how they react.

    Puh-leeze is right.


    The Lott comment was disgraceful (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:32:46 AM EST
    The Reid comment was stupid and impolitic because he used an archaic word.

    If you really can not see the difference between the 2, I do not know what to say to you.


    It wasn't just stupid (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:34:54 AM EST
    And the fact that you can't see the two comments are bad is equally surprising.

    Of course they are both bad (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:36:15 AM EST
    they are not equivalent.

    Are you seriously equating the two?


    My two cents (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 01:42:27 PM EST
    As Eleanor Holmes Norton noted, it is important to consider the records of the individuals (Reid and Lott.) She noted, then, that Reid's record testifies to his solid position as a proponent of civil rights and that he has actually "earned" the respect of the black community. The contrast: One spoke in tribute to a well-known segregationist and expressed longing for the return of that ideology so that things in the US would be easier (Lott in his comments at the late Strom Thurmond's birthday party.) The other conveyed an assessment of whether the US could look past race in a presidential election--and, used impolitic, somewhat insensitive words to do so (Senator Reid's comment before the 2008 election cycle began.) To those who can't or won't "see" the difference in the intent of such conversation, I doubt that even an opthamologist could help.

    what I think is interesting (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:40:09 AM EST
    is the bruhaha, even on the left, about what Bubba said.  something about a couple of years ago he might have been serving drinks.

    its nothing but true.  when are we going to be able to talk about this stuff?


    I will not discuss it (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:42:55 AM EST
    because I do not believe Bill Clinton said that to Ted Kennedy.

    you have to believe Clinton is an idiot to believe it.


    "you would have to believe Clinton (none / 0) (#66)
    by coast on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 11:49:58 AM EST
    is an idiot"

    Please.  Clinton is a brillant politician. But he has made some idiotic moves.  Getting a BJ in the White House from an intern is not brillance at work.  And as Reid's comments shows, people will say things in private that may not necessarily reconcile with their public image.


    to be fair (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:36:40 AM EST
    I think there were more problems with what Reid said that just he use of the word "negro"

    but there is no comparison to what Lott was saying.


    What were the problems in your opinion? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:41:49 AM EST
    Remember, this was a private conversation discussing political realities.

    do you think Reid said something that is inaccurate?


    I find it interesting that that seems (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:48:56 AM EST
    to get passed over. Especially when discussing someone like Obama, who was so heavily branded/marketed/packaged from the get go.

    I think (2.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:50:21 AM EST
    The Senate Majorit leader, in this day and age, should know better than to make that kind of comment.

    I think, those who make excuses for him, saying this isn't at all like Lott's are living in a dream world.


    You have no susbtantive answer (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:56:07 AM EST
    to the fact that Lott said it was a shame that Strom Thurmond lost in 1948 when running for President under the Segregationist Party.

    Reid used the word "negro" -archaic and bad, but not even close.

    that you refuse to deal with the differences says something about you, not Reid.


    no nothing he said was untrue (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:56:06 AM EST
    just as nothing Bill said was untrue.  it was just a stupid thing to say on the record.  not because its untrue but because it will be glommed onto by people like it has been.  its not the first time Bill  has given his enemies a club to beat him with.
    probably not Harrys first time either.

    I just think talking about how a non jive talking light skinned black man could probably get elected is simply not very politically smart.

    although I think he thought he was speaking off the record.  

    and, he was only saying what lots of other people were saying with more sensitive language.


    First (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:56:47 AM EST
    He did not say it on the record.

    Second, Bill did not say that imo. I do not believe it.


    I agree (none / 0) (#54)
    by lilburro on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 11:08:01 AM EST
    the reputed comment by Bill to Teddy Kennedy (god knows who the source is) is pretty much only believable if you think Bill Clinton is a raging racist.  Bill said some dumb things on the campaign trail but this comment paints a picture a litttttle too "complete."  

    A raging idiot rather (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 11:10:29 AM EST
    well (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 11:14:23 AM EST
    I have followed Bubba for many many years and unfortunately I can imagine him saying something so stupid.  and meaning nothing offensive by saying it.

    it would not be the first time.


    And, of course (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 11:23:27 AM EST
    if you have a mike on you 24-7 eventually you're going to get caught out saying something stupid.

    Which dosnt mean Im "apologizing" for anything Clinton may or may not have said.


    It's done all the time (none / 0) (#49)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:59:34 AM EST
    it's actually a fairly common practice and covers more than just race.

    The point (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:38:59 AM EST
    Which many here missed, is that Dems and progressive bloggers are holding politicians to different standards.  Trent Lott was rightly, excoriated and lost his leadership position.  For Reid's comments, Dems are acting like "Nothing to see here, no fuss, move along."

    If you're going to stand for something as a party, then you need to be consistent.

    But apparently it's better to look like fools.


    to explain this for what (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:41:46 AM EST
    I am sure is not the first time, it is very different to praise someone clumsily and use stupid language in doing it and wishing a segregationist had won the presidency at a critical time for civil rights.

    very different.


    holding to different standards? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by CST on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:42:52 AM EST
    or acknowledging the difference between the comments.

    They are NOT equal comments, and they shouldn't be treated as such.

    Are they both wrong?  Yes.  But they are not equally wrong, one is far, far worse.  No matter who says it.


    um (none / 0) (#85)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 01:31:31 PM EST
    no- you're, at this point I would assume intentionally, missing the fact that Reid's comment was archaic and a bit racist (ala Biden) whereas Trent Lott was pining for the days when a man whose lasting political achievement was the Senate's longest Filibuster (prevent the adoption of anti-lynching legislation) and a failed run on the Segregation Now, Segragation forever! platform was a presidential canidate.  

    No GMA (none / 0) (#4)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 09:15:38 AM EST
    Why is it intellectually dishonest? (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 09:36:18 AM EST
    If Dems and bloggers are going to go all ape-$hit crazy about what people like Lott say, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Lesson here is maybe we shouldn't have gotten all up in arms about what Lott said and instead pushed harder on his legislative actions.


    I cant believe you (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 09:47:06 AM EST
    believe that

    I do (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:24:35 AM EST
    I'm so tired of Dems, blogges, and people who think they are "superior" throwing
    (usually justified) hissy fits about something Republicans do, but then when a Dem does or says something just as crazy or nasty, it's excuse after excuse ("Well, it's not as bad as what so-and-so said.")

    Hypocrite, thy name is so-called "Progressives"


    Can you respond to gyrfalcon (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:30:39 AM EST
    because you seem unable to grasp the difference between bemoaning the fact that Strom Thurmond did not become President under the Segregationist Party banner and using the word "Negro" instead of African American.

    Your comments in this thread are pretty shocking frankly.


    I did. (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:33:42 AM EST
    I'm calling out Dems  and so-called progressives as hypocrites.

    We get so focused on the knucklehead stuff about people's off the cuff comments, that we miss the forest for the trees.

    And I thought Harry Reid's comments, given the date, was pretty shocking actually.  right up there with Lott's.

    The excuses around here are what is amazing.  He has a D next to his name, so of course, it isn't as bad.  Yes, it really WAS as bad as Lott's.


    I think you do not (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:34:59 AM EST
    use the word hypocrite correctly here.

    I doubt you'd find many black folks (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 11:00:06 AM EST
    that agree with you.  Some older white guy who comes from a state out West w/a small population of people period, let alone black folks, who uses an out of date term vs. another white guy who comes from a Southern state lamenting the fact that Segregation wasn't as successful as it could've been would not been seen as similar, I assure you.

    If Harry Reid had said black or AA instead of Negro, he would've still been speaking the truth.  That's what we should be talking about.


    Praising a segregationist (none / 0) (#20)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:27:34 AM EST
    is equivalent to praising a black man and using the old-fashioned word "Negro"?

    Apparently (2.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:36:57 AM EST
    Praising Robert Byrd is ok, though.

    Not for being in the KKK (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:40:42 AM EST
    You really are being willfully obtuse.

    "willfully obtuse" (3.00 / 5) (#91)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 02:00:14 PM EST
    is a key observation here. Perhaps, what we are seeing in this thread is the real allegiance of jbindc.

    Right (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 02:01:22 PM EST
    I'm a racist for pointing out that the very different reactions of the Dems is hypocritcal.

    The lack of logic around here today is astounding.


    No (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 02:43:50 PM EST
    I did not say nor intend to say that you are a racist. To be blunt: Your positions seem to equate with Republican talk show hosts.

    I was a Dem (none / 0) (#99)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 02:53:31 PM EST
    Who had my eyes opened up to the fact that the Dems are hypocrites. I guess I knew this, but after the past 2 years, it really hit home. I thought they were the good guys - they are not.  So the fact that they stand on top of each other screaming about every comment a Republican makes, meanwhile whistling past the graveyard everytime the Dems say something stupid or offensive makes me ill.

    The ways they have contorted themselves over this latest gaffe is worthy of an Olympic gold medal.  The Dems can't stand up there and proclaim to be superior when they tolerate crap like this from within their own party. It makes them look stupid.

    Do you get why I'm angry now?

    While Trent Lott is / was an a$$, the Republicans in this case have a point when they point out the double standard.


    A bit (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 03:10:46 PM EST
    That you are quite angry at the Democratic Party is obvious. And that is, of course, your prerogative. It can be hard for me to understand claims of hypocrisy in the political sense. Politics is and can be about a lot of things--hopefully, good governance eventually predominates. But, positioning and power have always played a central role in the political theatre (too much so in the last number of years.) So, the part I really don't get is why one who follows the subject and art of politics would be surpised by the rough & tumble of party politics? Since you keep referring to "they" in talking about Democrats, it is fair to ask where you find yourself affiliated now? (And again, the reason for the question is: Knowing a person's starting perspective can ease the engagement in discussion and debate because it dispenses with the need--as I failed to do--to assign a label.)

    Praising Strom Thurmond (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by CST on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:40:54 AM EST
    as a person would be one thing, since I know he personally changed his veiws over time (like Byrd).

    But praising his presidential campaign, which was a segregationist campaign, and wishing he'd won THAT campaign, is very different from saying "he's a nice guy, he's done some good things since".


    Actually (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:48:34 AM EST
    He was praising a man for his career at his birthday party.  Was it a stupid comment?  Yes.  Was anyone surprised by his feelings?  No. Am I defending his comment - absolutely not (despite the obtuseness of some around here who think I am).

    Even Tom Daschle said this at the time:

    "There are a lot of times when he and I go to the microphone and would like to say things we meant to say differently," Daschle said when asked about Lott's comments. "And I'm sure this was one of those cases for him, as well."

    Again - why are we making excuses for Harry Reid?


    This is dishonest (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:53:45 AM EST
    Praising Thurmond waqs not Lott's problem. Saying that it was a shame that Lott did not win the Presidency while running under the Segregationist Part banner in 1948 was the problem.

    There were a room full of people praising Thurmond that night.

    Only one said it was a shame Thurmond did not win the Presidency in 1948 while running under the Segregationist Party banner. That man was Trent Lott.

    Apparently, you see that as some minor gaffe. Most disagreed.


    I see (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 11:07:26 AM EST
    The apologists for Harry Reid on this and other sites as the problem.  No wonder we can't get anything done in this country - we're too busy making excuses for "our guys" while slamming the "other guys"

    I see no one (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 11:12:02 AM EST
    "making excuses" for Reid.   I see them saying there is no comparison, like the republicans have tried to make, between what he said and what Lott said.

    at least that is what I am saying.


    if all else fails (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 11:21:01 AM EST
    I will take my racial offense cues from Al Sharpton and Lani Guinier

    Not making an equivalence (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 11:12:32 AM EST
    between what Lott said and what Reid said (dumb) isnt "apologizing" for Reid.

    no (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 11:22:04 AM EST
    it isnt

    The idea (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by CST on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 11:15:32 AM EST
    that you think this site is full of Harry Reid "apologists" is funny to me.  As if this is all due to some unequivical love for Harry Reid.

    Grist for the manufactured outrage mill (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 09:18:29 AM EST
    Liz Cheney on 'This Week' yesterday getting all righteous about "racist" Harry Reid was enough to make me lose my lunch. She is a fitting heir to her parents, that's for sure.

    btw (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 09:54:26 AM EST
    what the hell is she doing on a talk show?

    That's what I was asking myself the whole time (none / 0) (#16)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:20:37 AM EST
    Best example out there of Versailles on the Potomac.

    at first (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:22:11 AM EST
    I thought it was an attempt to make Cokie look centrist and Will look sane.

    Liz Cheney has been a regular (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 01:09:12 PM EST
    on the political talk show circuit for months now.  Amazing you guys have missed that.

    She's a twofer...or better! (none / 0) (#113)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 03:37:12 PM EST
    Republican, lesbian, female, attractive (and blond!), snappy talker...

    wait (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 03:41:02 PM EST
    I thought the other daughter was the lesbian

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 03:43:39 PM EST
    Liz was a Deputy Undersecretary (or something like that) at the State Dept. Speculation is that she will run for office in the future.

    Mary is the lesbian (among other things).


    Oh cripes! More coffee... (none / 0) (#119)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 03:51:38 PM EST
    or a nap.  Ot both.

    I thought (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by CST on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 03:42:17 PM EST
    that Mary is the lesbian

    pretty sure it's not Liz.


    When asked if her father's (none / 0) (#73)
    by 1040su on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 12:32:57 PM EST
    comment as written in the book was true - that selecting Palin was a reckless act by John McCain - she said it wasn't true & immediately turned the conversation back to the juicy tales of the Dems as being far more interesting.  So... what they wrote about her father is a lie, but all the stuff about the Dems is true!

    says it all (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 09:27:57 AM EST
    From Greenwald's post:

    As The Nation's Chris Hayes so perfectly put it:  "Just when you think the news cycle can't get any stupider, Mark Halperin publishes a book."  

    The larger point that Glenn makes (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 09:55:39 AM EST
    can be summed up here, in particular the bolded sentence:

    This reaction has nicely illuminated what our press corps is.  The book is little more than royal court gossip, churned out by the leading practitioner of painfully sycophantic, Drudge-mimicking cattiness:  Time's Mark Halperin.  And all of the courtiers, courtesans, court spokespeople (i.e., "journalists") and hangers-on who populate our decadent little Versailles on the Potomac can barely contain their glee over the opportunity to revel in this self-absorbed sleaze.  Virtually every "political news" TV show is hyping it.  D.C. reporters are boasting that they obtained early previews and are excitedly touting how intensively they're studying its pages in order to identify the most crucial revelations.  Just try to contemplate how things would be if even a fraction of this media energy and interest level were devoted to scrutinizing the non-trivial things political leaders do.

    Torture investigations?  Yawn.  Bankster bailout debacle?  What?  Complete and utter clusterf**k on health care reform?  Just not sexy enough.

    But, what does Halperin care?  He's still making money from it, and for sure, there's an audience for it.

    Oh, well - American Idol's new season kicks off this week - Ellen DeGeneres replaces Paula! - so maybe this will all be old news by Wednesday morning...

    You hit on my problem (none / 0) (#15)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:18:19 AM EST
    with Washington and the way the media covers it.

    This book like so many things is a sideshow.  We get lost in the mechanics of how Washington works and forget about the real issues and the policies that effect our lives.

    Partisans are so focused on the fight that they are willing to set aside the real concerns they have for the policies in order to get the short term satisfaction of striking down our enemy.  I wasted so much energy and time defending Bush and I'm now man enough to admit that he wasn't worth it on every issue.  He did some things right (like any politician) but he did lots of things wrong (like almost every politician.

    This whole book is a tribute to 2 to 3 year campaign that was the 2008 presidential election and how excited and outraged everyone got and all the gossip, spin and coverage devoted to it.  Blah, blah, blah....gossip, interesting sideshows, etc.. etc...

    The result?  The same policies and more  involvement by Washington in our lives.

    Look over here, look at how interesting the campaign was and don't worry about what the politicians are really up to.

    It's enough to make you sick.


    It's what Lucianne Goldberg called (none / 0) (#76)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 12:39:24 PM EST

    And it sells. Which is the bottomline for these hacks.


    I guess since Reid has apologized, (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 11:25:27 AM EST
    he's admitting that he did say what was attributed to him in Halperin's book, but Halperin provides no source for Reid's "private" comments - the lack of sourcing and attribution, and the proliferation of anonymous sources, should cause everyone who lowers him- or herself  to read the book to do so with great skepticism.

    The relevant passage from Halperin's book:

    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 was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination."

    Now, there have been more than a few occasions when BTD has told me I am silly and obtuse, so I am prepared to read that again, however...I have to say that when I initially read the passage that has gotten Harry Reid in so much hot water, I was hard-pressed to see what the fuss was about.  Here's the Senate Majority leader, whose support for Obama - if you can believe Halperin - was "unequivocal," and he's offering reasons why those who have been wary of electing a person of color to the presidency up til now might find Obama an acceptable candidate.

    I never saw it as Reid expressing why HE found Obama electable, but as I said, maybe I'm just being silly again.

    Regardless, Reid's alleged comments just do not rise to anything near the level of what Trent Lott said about Strom Thurmond not being elected; they just doesn't.  

    In any event, what Halperin alleges Reid said, and Reid's falling into the trap of having to defend himself, and all the rest of the smarm and sleaze he's compiled in a "book," are just a distraction from some really serious issues that should require that both the media and our legislators treat the Halperin book as the dreck it is - and MOVE ON.

    My first reaction was (none / 0) (#77)
    by 1040su on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 12:41:34 PM EST
    that it was more a comment on the mindset of the American voter than on Obama.  It seemed to me that it was more derogatory to the electorate.  

    I think that the problem for Reid and Dems (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 11:50:13 AM EST
    may be in what he is saying not about Obama -- including the insightful phrase left off of a lot of this discussion, that Obama can adapt to a dialect that is not his when he wants to! -- but about almost all other African Americans.  

    He is saying that they can't get elected -- and that Dems won't work as hard for it -- because of their skin tone and speaking style?  Wow.  This from a major player in picking who gets to run from the party that positions itself as the party for African Americans.  

    As for comparisons with Lott and the like, those are distracting because they lack the party context.  Republicans only now, with Michael Steele, are attempting to reclaim their origins as the party for African Americans, until the 1930s.  So it is just different when a Dem says something that is so revealing of retro thinking.  

    What serious attempt (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by lilburro on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 12:02:34 PM EST
    are Republicans making to be the party for African Americans?  Having Steele at the top of the party doesn't make it so, nor does having Palin at the top making the GOP the party for women.

    Well, exactly. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 12:11:33 PM EST
    Of course, it's all laughable to us -- as is any such tokenism, and by both parties.  But that's the mindset.

    Fro some reason, in this sentence: (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 12:38:04 PM EST
    This from a major player in picking who gets to run from the party that positions itself as the party for African Americans.

    I focused on the "who gets to run from the party" and all I could think was, well, the way they've been conducting themselves, they sure are deciding who will "run from the party" - run away, that is.

    On your mark...


    Fat chance (none / 0) (#87)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 01:36:46 PM EST
    You know the GOP might have more luck courting minority voters if they looked at why the lost the minority vote in the first place-- you know regarding civil rights as a secondary goal and all.

    Again: Well, duh. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 01:53:39 PM EST
    As so many have been so misunderstood in comments, here, I guess I have to point to what I said:  That it is what the Republicans are attempting.  

    That does not mean
    -- that in Republicans' attempt to do so fools me or most Americans, African American or otherwise, who know silly tokenism when we see it.
    -- that I am attempting to make Republicans do so or am at all countenancing their transparent tokenism.
    -- or that I am at all interested in continuing to reply to what I didn't say.

    Nor, for that matter, am I at all interested in doing as you suggest, which is to assist Republicans in understanding any of this.  Most whom I know are beyond hope, and others whom I know already get it.  But they are Republicans for other reasons that passeth my understanding.


    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Jackson Hunter on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 12:17:43 PM EST
    I agree that Lott's statement was worse than Reid's, but the fact that any educated person in this world under the age of 100 would ever use that word unless they had some level of racism.  Seriously, when is the last time you have heard someone use the word 'Negro" in any way but ironically for, oh I don't know, AN ENTIRE GENERATION!  How many of you loved "Barack the Magic Negro" or how many of you thought is was racist.

    Don't believe, fine.  Just start callin every AA you meet Negro as I'm sure they won't care since all you are using is an "archaic" term and not being disrespectful at all.

    Reid shouldn't lose his job over this, but the man is a fricking FAILURE, a bigoted pro-life buffon and we wonder why we can't progressive legislation through?  Well gee, gomers, I wonder why?  Jeebus Crisco, Reid should lose his job on principle, but I agree not for this silliness, but if we can rid ourselves of this crooked Pol (he was a character in Goodfellas for God's sake, but only as a paragon of virtue I'm sure) then let's do it.  

    In case you didn't know, the people of his own State are likely to boot him out for being a loser, but yes, let's defend this fine legislator and super-cool human being instead of moving our Caucus leftward, which I thought was the goal.  And we wonder why we lose even when we win elections.


    C'mon Jackson (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 12:24:13 PM EST
    You're being obtuse.  He didn't do anything wrong - just a bad chocie of words in a private conversation.



    Let us hope (none / 0) (#11)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 09:49:06 AM EST
    That this episode will serve as a catalyst to both wake people up to the shallow gossipy nature of portions of the MSM and marginialize those same elements.

    I honestly dont think it will (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 09:53:44 AM EST
    do either.  the book will make tons of money and be hailed by the guilty portions of the MSM as an "important work"

    here is an example.

    Joe giving a stirring defense of the insanity when Howard Dean calls him out.


    Howard Dean (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:40:52 AM EST
    Howard was spot on in his analysis (calling it pure gossip and not worth the attention iirc,) hence the need for the authors to defend their credibility when they came on later in the AM.  

    Joe's "stirring defense" is rooted in something else, and not a defense of the book's subject matter, IMO.  To the extent that he refers to the the subject matter, it's to call out what he sees as hypocrisy.

    At the very least, I'm hopeful this book will make these two pariah's at least among those who control the information.  Two less of their ilk to take seriously.


    not a defense of the subject matter? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:45:18 AM EST
    did you watch the clip?  that is exactly what it was. a defense of his coverage of this crap as important and relevant.

    "those two" were practically called conquering heros on that show and will be welcomed back.  to talk about this very book probably more than once.
    this is the stuff Joe and Mica live for.


    I watched the show this AM. (none / 0) (#44)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 10:51:40 AM EST
    I agree, they're both regulars and will likely return.  

    I heard something different in his defense of the importance of the book.  IMO, it was, as has been noted upthread by other commenters, a tool he felt could be important to highlight the supposed hyprocrisy of our party wrt race.


    "supposed hypocrisy" (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 11:02:25 AM EST
    supposed bring the operative word.  there is no hypocrisy. ODonnell was the honest one when he admitted he hoped the book was FULL of salacious gossip.  and also honest when he spoke of Joes dishonesty.

    for me, on one level I agree with the "excuse" Joe was making.  it IS interesting to know what these people say in private.

    however, I think it should be the garnish on the feast of news and not the main course.  which it is.


    personally (none / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 11:09:13 AM EST
    of all the crap that has been leaked but stuff about Elizabeth Edwards is the most surprising.

    Oh, I don't know (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by BDB on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 01:26:46 PM EST
    A Village scribe painting a strong, independent woman as an out-of-control shrew isn't all that surprising.  Can you name one strong political woman who hasn't gotten this treatment at some point in time?  

    I have no idea what kind of person Elizabeth Edwards is and I'm quite sure no matter how much Village gossip I read, I still won't.


    Sounds like all the women (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 01:34:04 PM EST
    got the royal treatment. Palin is insane and Cindy Mc is also a shrew who perchance has a side dish . . .

    its surprising (none / 0) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 01:31:26 PM EST
    because of the completely opposite way she has been portrayed by the MSM before this.

    As I recall from reading (none / 0) (#96)
    by brodie on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 02:34:11 PM EST
    that colorful portrait of EE the other day, we have some unfortunate behavior on her part both pre- and post-Rielle Hunter, particularly in the way she denigrated her henpecked husband to his face and as she ran roughshod verbally over his staff.  

    Against that Mary Todd Lincoln sort of flying off the handle unpredictable behavior, we have the competing previous two-dimensional and too good to be true PR image of faithful co-partner spouse/advisor dealing courageously with her cancer.

    Apart from the cancer situation, I'm inclined to believe the truth is something far more flawed than the sanitized version put out by the several Edwards campaigns, but perhaps not quite the ready for a straightjacket version portrayed in the book.  


    "But, perhaps not"? (none / 0) (#97)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 02:39:23 PM EST
    No. Very definitely not.



    Hey, I thought I'd (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by brodie on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 03:04:25 PM EST
    been reasonable in my qualifiers.  Especially after some of the fairly shocking revelations about a certain other Edwards in the recent past.  

    Best at this point not to get too wedded to the prior sanitized image, while keeping my options open about the colorful alternative.


    Believe me, (none / 0) (#132)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 05:01:53 PM EST
    I've personally known enough politicians and their spouses to be able to see the forest for the trees when it comes to the personal imperfections of public figures. I just don't feel like reading people trashing Elizabeth Edwards, or any other political wife, for that matter. Halperin and his buddy are nothing more than gossip-mongers, in the vein of TMZ-for-DC.

    Peace, out.


    couldnt find a more appropriate (none / 0) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 01:22:09 PM EST
    thread to put this in :

    Former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska has signed on as a contributor to the Fox News Channel.

    The network confirmed that Ms. Palin would appear on the network's programming on a regular basis as part of a multiyear deal. Financial terms were not disclosed.

    It just goes to show you (none / 0) (#92)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 02:00:27 PM EST
    that anyone can get a network gig.  Between this and the clowns on MSNBC nightime lineup, who needs the Comedy Channel?

    I say (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 02:06:06 PM EST
    go with god.  so to speak.  

    its the job she was born to do.  


    Martin Luther King, acceptance (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 03:01:40 PM EST
    speech, Nobel Prize, 1964:  link

    P.S.  In the '90s, I always referred to the inmate plaintiff in the lawsuit I was defending as "African-American."  This pissed him off.  He made fun of me.  He called himself "Black."  Can't win.

    MLK would be 80 now (none / 0) (#107)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 03:15:08 PM EST
    and that he was not allowed to live to continue to see the progress made after his time does not mean that we ought to go back to his time.

    I call people what they prefer to be called.  I ask.  None whom I know, whom I ask, ever would use the terms of those times.  Or in a larger setting, such as a lecture, I explain that I will be using some terms interchangeably that are preferred -- African American, black, people of color (a term used more often to include others of color as well) -- but never, ever any form of the "n" word, because it is not one of their terms of preference in our time.

    Btw, this does make research fascinating, as also needed is "Afro-American" to find materials filed under varying terms as they changed. But once you see the materials that turn up, it is telling, and especially in media usage.

    Based on that, I suppose it would be just fine to go back to seeing newspaper headlines with "Negro" in two-inch-high letters?  Because MLK said it?  Heck, because Lincoln said it?  Silliness.


    Harry Reid is c. 70 years old. (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 03:19:15 PM EST
    And Reid has been allowed to live (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 03:21:20 PM EST
    and keep learning and growing, as MLK did.

    So the question is, why has Reid not done so?  


    I certainly did not realize using the (none / 0) (#121)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 04:07:51 PM EST
    word "Negro" is now taboo.  Perhaps archaic.  How will school children understand Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech?

    Cracker isn't taboo either (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 04:27:26 PM EST
    But the only time I choose to use it is when discussing cheese of some sort.  

    C'mon now, I've read your comments, you're much smarter than that.  Obviously context matters.


    I thought the part of Reid's remarks (none / 0) (#124)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 04:33:54 PM EST
    which would prove inflammatory was the part about how Obama had no identifiable accent but could put one on when he chose to.  

    I tell you, this is nothing new either (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 04:52:15 PM EST
    For those of us who have to "move between worlds" as I like to call it, using slang and other colloquialisms (or not) when amongst different groups is nothing new - and reflects the reality of our society.  

    How many folks knew what it meant to be someone's "dawg" (let alone the proper spelling) prior to the advent of American Idol's Randy Jackson?  How many women would've been offended?  I'm not surprised at all that wasn't an issue.  Remember the term "ebonics?"  As silly a term as ever there was - like Black people don't talk differently and have their own sayings like every other race or group.  Really, the point of discussion is as has been noted elsewhere; that Reid saw the problem as it used to be, and felt it could be overcome this time around.  Forget the primary stuff for a minute - would we have voted James Clyburn president had he been the nominee?  There are multiple lessons in this whole episode.


    Yep. You also see (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 04:59:13 PM EST
    (as I noted in another comment) that the focus for me is on what Reid, and thus the Dem leadership, sees as the likelihood for other African Americans -- those descended from slavery, and thus in the South or with Southern heritage and speech, etc.   Essentially, I read Reid as saying that there are nearly nil chances for any others to so succeed.  And that is not at all what many African Americans, and others, saw in this election.  And that is the reason for the reaction in some parts of the press.

    Btw, based on this thread that a lot of people here still use the s-word to refer to Native American women.  This all has been quite an education today.


    Yes, (none / 0) (#133)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 05:05:38 PM EST
    The "s" word when applied to Native women is pretty insulting.  "Progressives" should know better.

    Stuff and nonsense. (none / 0) (#134)
    by JDM in NYC on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 05:13:54 PM EST
    If the s-word is indeed a vulgarism in its original meaning, then it should not be used. "Negro," however, just means black. No other meaning. There is another s-word that we can legitimately use here: strawman.

    No, that ignores the invention (none / 0) (#135)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 05:27:27 PM EST
    and reasons for the invention of the word Negro -- as distinct from the word Caucasian, say, and other terms.  Do you know the origins of the invention and its uses?

    So it's okay to keep using all of those terms -- and thus it's okay for Reid, and you, to refer to Senator Inouye as a Mongolian?  


    Merriam-Webster (on line) : (none / 0) (#136)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 05:32:19 PM EST
    Etymology: Spanish or Portuguese, from negro black, from Latin nigr-, niger
    Date: 1555

    Yes, and the Caucasus (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 06:26:15 PM EST
    is the etymology of your "race," I presume.  It is of mine, although no one in my heritage has been near the Caucasus in millennia.

    Eytomology is different from what I'm raising, which is the very invention of "race" -- and thus of "races," and thus all that the invention conveyed and connoted about, especially, the non-Caucasian races.

    Because, of course, the invention was by Caucasians.


    Taboo is too strong. Archaic (none / 0) (#127)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 04:42:41 PM EST
    is a perfectly good word for it.  If it were taboo, it would not be a term that schoolchildren would see in their textbooks, such as his speech.

    As to what to do about archaic terms -- and there are many, many in materials used in schools -- the thing to do, as I bet that you really do know, and as textbooks and teachers often do, is to tell students that it is permissible in such primary sources, as artifacts of their times, but that it is no longer used nor is it to be used in their student papers.  Even better, of course, is to not just tell them but to use this as a teaching moment to talk about sensitivity to others' wishes in general terms. . . .

    Would that such a teaching moment had happened for Reid and, apparently, for others here.  But it remains far less understandable for Reid, as a politician who rises to such a level usually does so owing to astuteness in listening to others.  So I think we now know even more about what is wrong with the party.


    My parents are 69 (none / 0) (#115)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 03:41:43 PM EST
    I've never heard them use the term "Negro".

    My grandfather is 95 - never heard him use it.

    My grandmother is 90 - never heard her use it.


    Like I said above, (none / 0) (#122)
    by JDM in NYC on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 04:08:52 PM EST
    everybody of my acquaintance, of all ethnicities,  used "Negro" or "colored" until about 1968, when they started changing to use "Black."

    And for CC to refer to "Negro" as a "form of the n-word" is silly. The racists in my home town used the n-word, and made it quite clear that they were not saying "Negro."


    Now, there you go again. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 04:35:16 PM EST
    We need a national speech on reading comprehension.  But it would not be understood, either.

    However, please, please do not tell me that you don't know the derivation of that other n-word.  Really?

    Wow, from Reid to this thread to that, if it really is so . . . I am astonished at how far we have not come, after all.


    Of course I know the derivation of the other (none / 0) (#129)
    by JDM in NYC on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 04:58:28 PM EST
    n-word- it is a corruption of the word "Negro." It is, however, a separate word. It is not a form of the word "Negro," and "Negro," which is the original word, can in no way be considered a form of it.

    Oh, yes, it can. That is not how it is seen (none / 0) (#131)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 05:01:48 PM EST
    by many African Americans, according to discussions with them and what I have read and more.  And it is not up to us how others see this; it is up to us, and Harry Reid, as to whether we are sensitive to it.

    Put it this way, as a friend did in a discussion like this with someone who was so resistant, too:  Spell the pronunciation of Negro phonetically, as pronounced in the Deep South.


    maybe we should (none / 0) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 03:51:23 PM EST
    just relax and enjoy this "book"

    McCain aide denies 'party of a*holes' line

       [McCain aides John] Weaver and [Mark] Salter begged McCain to ease up. He was already the face of the Iraq surge. Now he was becoming the face of what opponents called "amnesty." Just tone down the rhetoric, his advisers pleaded.
        McCain refused. He was disgusted by republicans in Congress and talk radio gasbags such as rush Limbaugh who bashed immigrants. "They're going to destroy the f*cking party," he would say.

        As McCain's town hall meetings devolved into shouting matches over immigration, the candidate let his frustration show through. He called Lindsey Graham in despair. Listen to these people, McCain said. Why would I want to be the leader of a party of such a*holes?

    oops (none / 0) (#120)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 03:52:07 PM EST
    accidental bold.  damn html