The news media and Nick Berg

Can you give a credible reference to that Fedral?

Lol! That was, indeed, pretty dumb!

1/7/04

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/elec04.s.mo.farmer.clinton.ap/

ST. LOUIS, Missouri (AP) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton apologized for joking that Mahatma Gandhi used to run a gas station in St. Louis, saying it was "a lame attempt at humor."

The New York Democrat made the remark at a fund-raiser Saturday. During an event here for Senate candidate Nancy Farmer, Clinton introduced a quote from Gandhi by saying, "He ran a gas station down in St. Louis."

After laughter from many in the crowd of at least 200 subsided, the former first lady continued, "No, Mahatma Gandhi was a great leader of the 20th century." In a nod to Farmer's underdog status against Republican Sen. Kit Bond, Clinton quoted the Indian independence leader as saying: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

The director of a U.S. center devoted to Gandhi's teachings called the remarks stereotypical and racially insensitive, while an educator said the flap underscored the need for politicians to be cautious when trying to get laughs.

"Political speeches can't be like episodes of The Simpsons," said David Robertson, a University of Missouri-St. Louis political science professor.

After being approached by The Associated Press to clarify the remarks, Clinton suggested in a statement sent late Monday that she never meant to fuel any stereotype -- often used as a comedic punch line -- that certain ethnic groups were synonymous with operating America's gas stations.

"I have admired the work and life of Mahatma Gandhi and have spoken publicly about that many times," Clinton said in a two-sentence statement. "I truly regret if a lame attempt at humor suggested otherwise."

So does Michelle Naef, administrator of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, the Memphis, Tennessee-based nonprofit group founded in 1991 by a Gandhi grandson to promote his grandfather's teachings, including nonviolent resistance.

While crediting Clinton and her husband, former President Clinton, as long having "supported the Gandhi message," Naef said Saturday's remarks "could be incredibly harmful" in perpetuating racial myths.

"I don't think she was, in any way, trying to demean Mahatma Gandhi," Naef said. "To be generous to her, I would say it was a poor attempt at humor. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive, but I find it offensive when people use stereotypes in that way."

To Robertson, the professor, the flap demonstrates the potential peril of when humor by politicians falls flat.

"The more prominent the politician, the more they've taken positions on equality in the past as Mrs. Clinton has, the more this is going to be troubling to some people," he said. "It's understandable that groups want to make sure they're treated with complete respect."

When it comes to Hillary Clinton, he said, "there's no reason to think she doesn't admire Gandhi, like so many people do. After all, Gandhi was influential to Martin Luther King Jr., and I know she respects King."

Sure how bout the following:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/152686p-134376c.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/elec04.s.mo.farmer.clinton.ap/index.html

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040108/asp/nation/story_2763992.asp

Enough references? If not I can provide more blatham.

After all of it .. no censure ... calls for her ro resign ... no uproar.

Good point Fedral. I never heard about it and to be fair it does support some complaining y'all are doin about media slant

Thanks panzade.

Yup, that was real dumb. She's gonna be slapping her own head around for a while about that.

But to speak to Fedral's aghast sense of unfairness...if I knew of anything else from Hilary's past which indicated racism or bigotry, I'd be very concerned indeed. But I know of no such.

Interesting point Blatham...let me dredge something up....

Interesting comparisons

Howard Wolfson, her (Hillary's) former press secretary, introduced a four-part forgiveness test (almost the exact same as the one given by Marc Morial, New Orleans Mayor, on Hardball):
1. Whether the speaker apologized quickly.
2. Whether the original statement was a joke.
3. Whether the apology is sincere.
4. Track record.

He went on to apply the test to both Hillary and Trent Lott, concluding that Hillary was clearly good and Lott was clearly bad (see transcript). Let's analyze closer.
1. Hillary's statements were made on 1/3/04 and her apology was on 1/6/04 = 3 days. Lott's statements were made on 12/5/02 and his apology was on 12/9/02 = 4 days. I don't see much difference, especially since each was the Monday after a statement made over a weekend.
2. Neither was funny, but I at least recall people laughing at Lott, whether or not he intended it as a joke. Even if assumed not to be a joke, it is plausible to see it as an "unfortunate choice of words." Yes, segregation was bad, but might not even be as bad as forced busing. I think it would be hard to argue that we have solved the race problem after 40 years of anti-Strom policies. Also, there were other issues in that election that Lott might have agreed with. As for Hillary, no one laughed, and there is no possible way to justify it. None. It was outright stereotyping based on race.
3. This will always be a judgment call by the person making the determination. For instance, James Carville accepted Lott's apology, but others didn't. Lott had to apologize over and over again, and still had to resign his leadership position. As for Hillary's apology, I'm not sure how her statement could be "interpreted" any other way.
4. Carl Limbacher, newsmax.com columnist, was able to point out numerous times when Hillary made racially insensitive comments, including adopting a mock black accent during a speech. I'm not familiar with Lott's record, but I think it's probably clean for a few reasons. First, he probably wouldn't be elected in MS (36% black). Second, the media would have brought it out of the woodwork during the remark's aftermath. Instead, all the focus was on the singular incident. I think the general concensus was that he is a Republican and a Southern Senator, so he obviously must be racist.

Ironically, this is also the test that Jim Rome has applied to racist statements in sports. Based on what Rome thinks in in the athlete's "heart" (as he knows it), Shaq gets a pass for saying "ching-chong-yang-wah-ah-soh" about Yao, but Rush gets lambasted for saying the media thinks McNabb is better than he is, possibly because he is black. Yet again, Republican must be racist. Rome has some bad analysis sometimes, but I think when it comes to race and "apologies" he is at his worst.
Email that didn't get read: "Dear Rome, Vijay only won the money title because he got all that extra gas station money. Sincerely, Hillary."

I started another thread with this poll but it is instructive here too:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000517184

And yet former Senate Majority leader Trent Lott, a man with a long history of loyal service to the country and one who no one can ever recall making a 'racist' or 'bigoted' comment, trys to say something nice about Senator Strom Thurmond on the occasion of the mans 100th birthday and come up with a stupid and inane comment about the Sen. Thurmonds run for the presidency in 1948 (It's pretty sad when people who praise you have to go that far back to find something nice to say about you)

He makes the comment ... the press builds it into some sort of racist comment ... it is played endlessly ... and the Senate Majority leader is forced to RESIGN over a stupid comment.

Here is an article posted previously about this very type of double standard:

Sen. Robert Byrd, the longstanding Democrat from West Virginia, cast his 17,000th vote in the chamber last week. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) saw fit to mark the occasion with a rousing tribute in which he proclaimed, "There is no one I admire more. There is no one to whom I listen more closely and carefully when he speaks on any subject matter than Sen. Byrd."

For obvious reasons, Dodd neglected to mention that Byrd is a former Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan. Nor did Dodd dwell on the fact that Byrd voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or that Byrd broadcast his racial insensitivity by using the N-word during a 2001 appearance on Fox News.

Instead, Dodd simply praised the former Klansman from West Virginia as a gifted legislator and a stout defender of the Constitution.

This is somewhat puzzling considering that when Sen. Trent Lott remarked that the country would have been better off if former segregationist Strom Thurmond had won his 1948 bid for presidency, the Democrats demanded his ouster. And rightly so. Lott's racially-insensitive remarks were indicative of his upbringing in "a time and a place" that regarded blacks as inferior. Lott's remarks suggested that he just didn't get it, that he had no ability to truly empathize with what it means to be a minority in this country. The Democrats understood this. Flanked by the Congressional Black Caucus, they pumped their fists at Lott and demanded that he vacate his post.

Yet, they say nothing when one of their own praises a former Klansman. They haven't even asked Dodd to issue an apology. This is an outrage. Some things should not be explained away, like Byrd's affiliation with an organization that has a long history of hanging blacks from trees.

And yet, there is Dodd, on the Senate floor, demanding that Sen. Byrd "would have been a great senator at any moment. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation. ."

Really? A former Klansman would have been great during the Civil War? Great for whom? I'm not aware of many Klansmen who fought to free the slaves, or to uphold the union or to protect basic rights.

Had a Republican praised a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, the Democrats would have been up in arms. But when one of their own makes racially-insensitive remarks, they avert their eyes. Some things should not be ignored. Some things should not be subject to the whims of partisan politics. When our elected leaders spew racist remarks, they need to be held accountable - regardless of their political affiliation.

It would be nice if the party that demanded Sen. Lott's ouster for praising a former segregationist could be equally outraged when one of their own praises a former Klansman. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Democrats to end their double standard on race.

panzade

That's a stretch. Strom was just a yuk yuk sorta guy. There you are speaking of a deeply racist tradition. Not comparable to insensitivity in a one line bad joke.



You aren't really going to hold to that claim are you?

And could you please explain/link the following...

fedral

I grant you an imbalance on that one. With an important caveat as to the records of Thurmond and Byrd. But your point is valid.

Dear Fedral and Panzade:

Thank you for showing Mr. Blatham that he does not know everything about Hillary Rodham Clinton. In fact, Mr. Blatham doesn't know much about anything. His last post read:


With an important caveat as to the records of Thurman and Byrd.

I am compelled to refer him to the admonitions of one P. Diddie who asked me whether I had any proof of my statement.

Mr. Blatham apparently thinks he can decorate the landscape on these posts with unsourced and undocumented piles of steaming bovine excrement. I'll just have to report him to Mr. P. Diddie.

And of course, not only is Hillary a foul mouthed racist( Thank you panzade and Fedral, she is also a four star Anti-Semite and a hypocrite.
Pehaps people who live in far flung places like Canada do not know of the outburst reported by Bill Clinton's one time right hand man, Dick Morris.
Dick Morris alleged that first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton once insulted him by suggesting that, as a Jew, he was obsessed with money.
"That's all you people care about is money" Mrs. Clinton shouted at Dick Morris when Morris requested a pay raise during a meeting while Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas.

Source for above-"Hillary's Choice" by Gail Sheehy

And, Hillary is also a hypocrite.

Bigtime.

Hillary also pontificated about the "Greed of the 1980's" She apparently did not worry about greed when she magically turned an investment of $1,000 into $100,000 in one year while trading in cattle futures.

How? By reading the Wall Street Journal. Veteran traders in the cattle future market say it is well nigh impossible to have turned $1,000 into a $100,000 in one year. Not bad for a person who once complained about the decade of Greed.

Source for above-www.commodex.com/Hot_Story/Hillary.htm

Why is Hillary like this?

Well, the noted Columnist, William Safire of the New York Times might have found the answer.

He said: Mrs. Clinton is a congenital liar.

congenital, of course, means innate.

source for Safire's comment-
www-cgi.cnn.com/US/9601/first_lady/