Harry Reid

Theresa - posted on 01/15/2010

It's amazing to me that Conservatives/Republicans always THINK they know the psyche of every Democratic! Today's Democratic voter is not the Democratic voter that once was. We are increasingly becoming more independent and critical in our thinking. We show loyalty to a "particular candidate" and not to just the party as a whole. We do not BLINDLY defend any politician just because they're a Democrat. We are AWARE of our country's history and that of the Democratic party. We know that racism and sexism still exists and we don't AGREE with everything a Democrat say and does. All we want is what is BEST for our country. Real change and reform.



The problem is not with us the voter. The problem is with the politicians (Republicans and Democrats). They are hungry for power and money and promise one thing and do another. Meanwhile, voters argue and fight with one another about how much more patriotic their party is and how their party is so much better for this country. The politician is not thinking about us, they're thinking about themselves. Politicians are switching parties and flip flopping on issues faster than I can write this comment. It's really humorous and sad at the same time!

JL - posted on 01/14/2010

I know the flip flop history of the parties too bad the Republican party is know longer the same as is was during the Reconstructive period. We are discussing modern politics and the way the parties are RIGHT now in this day and age. Last time I checked many African American Republicans support Affirmative Action. Steele is for example a Republican how believes AA still has a place. He just thinks like most supporters of AA on both sides of the aisle that it should be used properly and not abused. As far as AA doing more damage I think Colin Powell and load of other minorites would disagree. I have freinds who have said they got the chance to go to college and better their lives because of AA.



I myself have used WIC before to help my family during a time when the miltiary moved us and I could not get a job, was pregnant with my second kid, my husband was deployed and we were waiting for him to get a pay raise. Thankfully since Democrats instilled programs like headstart my daughter was able to go to Pre-K. I went to college by getting partial tution assistance through government student loans something started by Democrats. Not everyone takes advantage some of us need a help up and thankfully there are programs to help us when we need it most.



Republicans being the truely colorblind party..wow...you mean when the Republican party was the anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant party during the late 1800s and early 1900s while the Demcratic party attracted immigrants and various religioius ideals that was a form of not viewing people as members of groups. Or when Nixon was in office and the Republican party would pay off duty cops to stand around in huddles near African American polling places to intimidate them that was a form of not veiwing people as members of groups.



It was in 1948 in which the flip flop in the platforms of the Republican and Democratic party really became substantial. The Demcratic party adopted a pro-civi Rights stance leading the Southern Democrats to walk out of the party. It was predomintaley Southern Democrats that stood against civil rights and desegregtion. The party was divided and it was Southern Democrats who turned to the Republican party with which they brought their stance against civil rights with them turning the Republican party into the main party in the south attracting the anti segregation crowd and by 1964 the Republican party had a strong hold on the south and became the party with the strong white middle class Christian base.



The Republican party that existed before the 1930s is not the same Republican party..the platforms are not the same just as the Democrat party that exists now is not the same. The platforms have flip flopped and 20 to 40 years from now they will probably flip flop again and what will be considered Republican may have been once viewed as a Democratic platform and so on. Both parties have a history of not standing in the correct place when it comes to race but we are talking about the here and the now..the modern parties that exist now, the situations we are dealing with now.



I do have to say that if George Wallace was running for office today he would definitely not run as a Democrat.



Martin Luther King was a radical liberal in his thinking especially when it came to human rights and he believed in the government assiting people. He was on a mission to rid the world of war and end homelessness when he died. He was breaking away from the older civil rights platfor and was aligning himself with Liberals which is why the other leaders of the SCLC were arguing with him before he died. He was starting to take part in the Anti-Vietnam movement working with the "hippy" leaders on an anti-war platform. In 1968 he headed up the Poor Peoples Campaign and was working with Jesse Jackson. The campaign was about demanding the government provide economic aid to the poorest areas in the country....providing goverment assistance and rebuilding cities.



I still think Reid was making a racist "compliment" he was pointing out a sad reality that I know exists here in the South. I have heard directly from the mouths of people that talk about how they don't like having a "black" man in office but Obama is not that bad because they don't find him to act like a typical "black" man. The thought process is disturbing and sad but it is real and Reid should NOT have said it but it does not pale in comparison to using the term black man in a way to strike out verbally in anger as Perry did and it does not pale in comparison to Lott's racist thinking..Lott is a racist plain and simple.



I feel in order to be truely colorblind as you claim Republicans are then they don't need to use the word black man when they are expressing their anger and dissapointement with Obama. Hello we already know he is a man of mixed race so why point it out when on a verbal tirade. Like I said if they are all that colorblind then why don't they say white man when referring to Reid or white lady when referring to Pelosi. WHY the HELL must they say black man when they talk about Obama. That is not colorblind that is color ignorance.



In the case of the idea that pedophiles are protected by the Mathew Shepard act well that is a situation of Right Wingers jumping on the train of lies and instilling fear.The whole arguement was over the fact that the bill was adting protecttion to sexual oreintation and sexual identity.Democrats specifically said that an attraction to children is not considered a "sexual oreintation" as is stated in the friggin definition itself, but Republicans still insisted that there was some veil connection between protecting homosexuals and protecting pedophiles. The defintion of Sexual oreintation according to the APA which is protected in the act is that it it is an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic,and/or sexual attractions to men,women, or both sexes.



Men and women not children.The act does not deny rights to others like veterans it just adds protection for those harrassed and abused and attacked due to sexual orientation, sexual identity, ethincity, race and religion. Republicans from the very beginning referred to the act as the Pedophile Enabling Act and not all the arguements were not about the content of the act but about the idea that homosexuality and pedophilia go hand in hand. Perhaps if some of the Republicans had grabbed a dictionary and read the definition of Sexual oreintation they would not have been so confused about the issue.

Kelly - posted on 01/14/2010

Ok, so let me understand..... when someone uses race to "compliment" like Reid did, its ok, shrugged off as a bad choice of words. When someone mentions race and is critical or negative like Parry, it is racist and derogatory...... got it.

As far as the second comment, "what is with Democrats and Pedophiles"? This is just another example of liberals jumping on the "hate" train. Parry was NOT referring to the Mathew Shepard Act as a whole when he made that comment. Congressman Steve King proposed an ammendment in committee that would remove pedophiles as a protected group under the hate crimes act. Democrats resoundingly voted no, and pedophiles remain protected in the act. WTF? Interestingly enough, Congressman Rooney proposed an ammendment in the same committee meeting to add Veterans as a protected class under the bill. Not only did Dems vote no on this one as well, One made the comment that she thought it was "belittling" to other protected groups to imply that Veterans were victims of hate crimes.

On a side note, as a historian, you must have a grasp on the history of the Democratic and Republican parties. I think it is astounding that the general concensus is that the Democrats have always been "pro" minority and its the Republicans that continually strive to hold them down.
FACT: Republican party was formed in response to the "pro-slavery" stance of Democrats
FACT: The KKK was created by the Democratic Party
FACT: Democrats opposed and defeated a Republican bill that would have made lynching a federal crime
FACT: Democrats (Al Gore Sr. was most vocal) attempted to fillibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act
FACT: Bull Connors, George Wallace, and Robert Byrd - all Democrats
FACT: Martin Luther King Jr. (a Republican) wanted racial equality, not racial scale tipping

Democrats have in the past and continue today to view people as members of groups instead of as individuals. political correctness, Affirmative Action, and dependence on social welfare are just a few Democratic ideals that have done more harm to minorities than good. Republicans have throughout history, shown themselves to be the true "colorblind" party.

There are of course "racists" in both parties, but there is a definate double standard. If this thread had been started with Parry's comment instead of Reid's, the original posts I guarantee would not have been so forgiving and understandable.

JL - posted on 01/13/2010

Why did he even have to say black man...would he say BIden was a power hungry white man. NO..he would not use white man in reference to a white guy he was talking about in a negative manner but he felt necessary to say black man. He sounds like a total idiot if he cannot figure out that first off it is uncalled for to point out someone race when talking negatively about them unless you are trying to make a point about their race which in that case it is then right to question if they maybe racist. It is a little more than poor choice of sentence structure when the man has said blatantly he is not PC and that he realizes what he says is offensive but he does not care. BUT of course when he got heat for the Obama statement he back peddaled and said he did not know how to use twitter correctly even though he has had an account for a year or more and then that he was just pointing out separate thoughts and accidently put them together. Umm only a moron would not understand that twittering what he did would have direct racist connotations to it.I just fail to see why someone would when slamming Obama bring up in the negative comment that he is a black man. When people slammed Bush we did not bring up his race.



Whenever I call Dick Cheney an arrogant self centered egotistical piece of crap..I don't call him an arrogant self centered egotistial peice of crap white man. Because it is not neccessary to point his race. I think we have all figured out by now he is white.



What about Perry's comment ......."What is it with Democrats and pedophiles."

A comment he made in reference to the passage of the Mathew Shepard Act.



As far as Steele making the comment because he is taking the position as a black man offended I find it highly suspect and it is hard to take a man seriously that he is offended by a remark concerning race when he himself has made remarks about other races and ethnicities and was up in arms when he was called out on it. Once again with Steele it comes off completly hypocritical, ironic, sarcastic, and full of political posturing.



I not a fan of Clarence Thomas at all and honestly I am not a big supporter of Reid either. Like I said most of them are all douche bags, but I do find it entertaining and ridiculous for the douche bags to call each other out for being douche bags and then arguing who is more of a douche bag. And I do still uphold the idea that Reid should step down as majoirty leader.



They all need to shut up and actually do some work.

Kelly - posted on 01/13/2010

I assume that you are talking about Parry's comment about Obama being a "power hungry, arrogant black man".......... I personally don't see an issue with it other than a poor choice of sentence structure. I happen to agree that Obama is power hungry and often is quite arrogant. In the political spectrum one has to have self confidence, but he is WAY overboard in that area. The fact is that he is a self described black man. Put together, it has the potential of being offensive to blacks. This is a perfect example of the left getting their panties bunched when a republican says anything remotely controvercial. Now, if he had said Obama is a "power hungry, arrogant N***er" that would be a COMPLETELY different story. Then the left would be justified in their reaction. But come on....... some act like he did say the latter.

As far as Steele is concerned, he is taking the position of a black man, offended by Reid's statement. The fact that his back porch isn't exactly clean does tend to downplay his credibility. I don't think for a second that there is one person in existence that doesn't have some type of dirty laundry when it comes to race somewhere in their past. It is whether or not that dirty laundry is isolated, or becomes a pattern that makes it relevent.

Is Reid a racist? Not sure I would go so far to label him that yet, but he has been known in the past to quickly label others as racist for saying "harsh but true" statements. And what about his feeling that Clarence Thomas was an embarrasment to the Supreme Court? Completely unfounded, and when pushed to explain, he made inaccurate comments about Justice Thomas and one of his opinions. Not to mention he belongs to a church that didn't allow blacks to join until almost 1980...... I don't think he is fit to be Majority leader, but I thought that before this whole issue anyway.

JL - posted on 01/13/2010

@ Kelly



I would not even said anything about Steele if his comments had not been referenced to concerning Reid. I did not go out of my way to start some advocation of Steele's removal. Honestly I don't care if the Republicans want him in that position or not. Steele is the least of my problems and I don't take him seriously because Steele is first and foremost all about himself.



The only thing I was trying to point out is that if Steele's words are to be heeded AND if you noticed in my first post I stated that Democrats needed to start praciticing what they preach... Anyways the only thing I was pointing out is that Steele has been one of the major voices of the Republican party who has been out there asking for Reid's removal.



It is hypocritical IMO that Steele would do this.I was not advocating for Steele's removal but if he is going demand Reid's removal and preach about standing ground when it comes to using inappropriate verbage that can be misconstrued and viewed as racist then HE SHOULD practice what he is preaching and walk along with Reid and be removed too.



Seriously Reid and Steele are in the same boat. BOth idiots who often put their foot in their mouth. I focused on Steele because the point was that him and Reid not much difference so obviously Steele's calling out for Reid's removal is therefore nothing more then a political tactic to distract everyone from the real issues we should be dealing with and the only reason I think Reid should step down is because his presence has now become an unfortunate distraction.



As far as the racist rep from West Va. I was pissed off that the Democrats backed him. I wrote an angry e-mail to the party and if I lived in West Va I would not have voted for that man. I do not blindly vote along party lines. I vote by candidate. I do not send money to the Democratic party I send money directly to candidates I support. I do not just volunteer for any Democratic candidate only for the ones I personally support. I use to be a paying member of the national Democratic Party and for the state and local Democratic organizations, 3 years ago I got very angry with the party and I have not in 3 years been an offical registered member, donated any money directly to the Parties national committee, or paid any dues to the party. I do not vote or stand behind any racist candidates.



I am wondering what do you think of Mike Perry who is a Republican backed candidate in MInnesota running for state Senate.



Personally I am not a big fan of Biden. And I DO NOT THINK Reid is a racist.

Dana - posted on 01/13/2010

Alright a little clarification would be nice, does ANYONE think that Harry Reid *is* racist? I thought we all have said , no to that one.

Kelly - posted on 01/13/2010

Amie, I agree that its stupid to get upset and hot and bothered by any and all comments that can be taken out of context. The point we disagree on is that Reid's comment was innocent. I don't think it was innocent at all. It's very insulting, not only to Obama, but to any other black American that has made a difference in Politics. So I guess that Colin Powell or Condi Rice wouldn't be electable because they are "too dark"? (If we are focusing on the racial aspect and not the political stance or background of the candidate)

As far as Michael Steele, yes he has made some distastefull comments. But you are kind of proving my point with this one. Joy in particular was quick to jump his ass and say he needs to go for using the phrase "honest injun" among others. Sure, this is derrogatory to Native Americans. But how can you argue that saying Obama is "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." is not derrogatory to all African-Americans? And I don't see anyone calling for Biden's head.

Amie - posted on 01/13/2010

LOL! I honestly didn't even notice that until you mentioned Kelly. At least you understood what I meant. For further clarification though on what I meant by my post.



I don't believe in getting upset and stepping in EVERY time something could be construed as being racist. There are blatant remarks (lott) and then there are innocent ones (reid). There is a very big difference between the two. Saying that you wish a Thurmond had won the presidential race, when that person is an obvious racist and wanted to keep suppressing black people, is just an underhanded way of saying "I'm racist but can't say it outright." Reid stating a truth, albeit one people DO NOT want to here, is an entire other matter. Obama was and is appealing to a certain demographic because he is a professional and acts like one. He is not "embracing" this negative (and stupid) picture of black americans because he is not one. He is not a thug, he does not speak in lingo, he acts exactly like the person he is, an educated, experienced professional. The injustice being done is in thinking that Reid's remark was racist. What I find more racist is the fact that painting ALL black americans in the light of the thugs and uneducated. I would hope an educated person, black, white, red, blue person would be able to see that.



Jenny your distraction comment is spot on too. From what I'm hearing (admittedly out of the left side) is that if this story hadn't broken the hot issue would have been Micheal Steel and the issues he's having as chairman of the GOP.

Theresa - posted on 01/13/2010

I don't agree with the Democrat's support of Robert Byrd. I think some of these Democrats would sell their own grandmothers if it got them votes. I also didn't support or forget about Jesse Jackson's remark about NYC being Hymie-town (and I'm from NYC). I also didn't forget Jackson's remarks about Obama not "being black enough" or "not supporting black causes" during the primaries (the infamous, "I want to grab him by the balls" comment).

Anyway, my point is Democrat or Republican...if you're wrong, you're wrong! I absolutely think what Locke said was racist and what Reid said wasn't. It's just my opinion.

I also think that people who are in public office, need to be very careful, what they say and to whom they say it too. If they keep their big mouths closed, their words can't be misconstrued or misinterpreted.

Jenny - posted on 01/13/2010

I think the whole thing is ridiculous and serves as nothing but a distraction. We ALL use innappropriate language at one point or another, whether intended or not. Good on Obama for trying to let it go and move on.

JL - posted on 01/13/2010

I am delighted I was able to make someone laugh, but what I find HI-LARIOUS is Michael Steele pointing out Democratic hypocrisy and standing as the main voice shouting for Reid's removal. Michael Steele the man who suffers horribly from foot and mouth disease. I lived in Maryland when he was Lt. Governor and when he ran for Senate. Michael Steele has for awhile been making inappropriate racially insulting comments. The man is a savant when it comes to using inappropriate racially insulting verbage. His calling for Reid's removal is the biggest joke I have heard. If Reid steps down then Steele should he right behind him steping down from his position because he has said many things that have been far worse things that have been racially and ethnically insulting to minorities. Steele acting all up in arms is definitely a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black. I think it is even funnier that Steele has been whining all about how he has been attacked for his verbage so Reid should be as well. Steele should focus on dealing with his own use of insulting verbage.

Kelly - posted on 01/13/2010

Amie, I think you meant Strom Thurmond, not Truman right? It threw me for a sec until I read further into your post. (Although Truman did supposedly have early ties to the KKK) What I am not understanding is how you say Reid's comment wasn't made about a whole race of people. By seperating Obama as somehow "better" than most of the black population, he was in essence putting down the average black American.

Theresa, you are right, racist comments have been made by BOTH sides. In your earlier post you made a great point. "Just because someone labels you a "racist" or accuses you of saying "racist" comments, doesn't mean you're a racist. I think the context in which a statement is made, the motivation behind it and it's intent, should all be taken into account. " Now, don't get me wrong, I am in no way sticking up for Trent Lott. However, the comment he made was at Thurmond's 6000th birthday party or whatever. The man is older than dirt. Can't it be argued that this particular comment was said to make the old man feel good? Maybe Lott kissing a little butt? You are absolutely right that it was Bush that forced Lott out. That is because at the end of the day, the comment was rude, disrespectful, made in bad taste, and not fitting of a politician. They should ALL be held to a higher standard.

So what is your take on Robert Byrd (KKK Dem. Senator from W. Virginia) using the term "white niggers"? The man filibustered The Civil Rights Act of 1964, and was active in the Klan for over 20 years and Dems. still support him. Or Jesse Jackson refering to NYC as "Hymietown"? Apparently its ok for a black man to insult all Jewish people, maybe because that comment was thrown in '88 all has been forgotten or forgiven?

And yes, the Dems absolutely need Harry Reid for the success of their agenda. Obama in my opinion, is not being the better man here. He is in my eyes brushing off a clear insult to get what he wants politically. That of course is up to him, and he has done worse in the past. His own VP described him as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." It's just aggrivating that Dems seem to only scream racism when their opposition says anything remotely controvercial, and when its one of their own, suddenly its swept under the rug and the Republicans are accused of over-reacting. If that's not a double standard, I don't know what is.

Theresa - posted on 01/13/2010

I don't think there is a double standard. The republicans are pissed off because in many of the other instances, the comments WERE racist, no matter how much they tried to CLEAN IT UP! They're acting like spoiled children, insisting that democrats get the same punishments that they have received. You can't turn and apple into an orange, no matter how hard you try!



* and for the record...it was the Bush white house that threw Trent Lott under the bus. There wasn't any need for the democrats to hoot and holler to get rid of him, Bush was all too happy to show him the door.



As far as the democrats "needing" Harry Reid...the democrats need to grow some balls. Too many backroom deals, expensive promises and unecessary compromises and sacrifices! The democrats had a chance to make some REAL changes and they're BLOWING IT big time!

Amie - posted on 01/12/2010

Alright so someone pointing out an obvious true point, regardless on whether or not those who do feel that way will admit it, is the EXACT same as a man who wished Truman had won the Presidential race in 1948. Truman, a man who was convinced that segregation was a good thing and that the north did not have enough of an army to force them to allow "niggers" into their way of life? Really?

The biggest difference in the two comments is one was made in lew of an entire race of people, the other was made about one man. That one man said he's talked to him and accepted his apology.


That'd be like me running for office and a supporter telling people that I have a good chance of winning because I don't look exactly like most Native people and do not speak like most of them. It's true because I don't. I am not as dark as some of them, most do not even realize I am half Native and I don't speak like them because I didn't grow up on a reserve! If I accepted that person's apology after speaking with them I'd expect the matter to be dropped. I would NOT expect a bunch of fanatics to take up my case for me.

Now if someone had come along and said I support so and so because if he had been elected our history would be a lot different. The so and so's stance having been that keeping them solely on the reserves and residential schools were a good thing. That the suppression of native people in Canada should have stayed that way, etc.

THAT would piss me off and absolutely I would fight for that person to be out of office.

Kelly - posted on 01/12/2010

I have been reading through these comments, and you ladies have me laughing. Dana is the only one that was honest in her asssessment. There is a complete double standard. Reid's comment was that Obama was "light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." Everyone wants to read between the lines any remark made by a Republican, and even Clinton's comment once it was decided Hil should be in the back seat. (For those of you who don't remember, Clinton's comment was "between the lines" him saying the large black population in S.C. allowed Jackson to win, as they allowed Obama to win so it didn't portray the country accurately) So realistically, what is the between the lines here? Obama is "light skinned" not one of those "scary dark black men" and "with no negro dialect unless he wants one" So he can actually speak english instead of that ghetto slang that "all the other" blacks use. Unless of course he is giving a speech to them, then he can blend in with the best of them! Wow. How much more racist can you get? I believe Reid needs to go for many reasons, this is just icing on the cake.

Michael Steele has this nailed on the head. Democrats can say insulting things, apologize and all is forgiven. But God forbid a Republican say anything that can be misconstrued. They can apologize till the cows come home and will always be a racist. The bottom line is, Democrats are scared because they know they may not have the Senate majority after the fall. Reid desperately needs Obama's support to get re-elected, and lets face it, at this point even that won't save him. The Dem. party chairman said Reid was obviously "praising" Obama in his statement. In what way exactly? By equating him to a "house" negro instead of a "field" negro? And before you all jump my butt for going there, please keep in mind if the comment was made by Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, or *gasp* Glen Beck, that is exactly what everyone would be screaming from the mountain tops.

Theresa - posted on 01/12/2010

I had a hard time finding it, but I found the comments Bill Clinton made about Obama during the primaries. Sorry, but I didn't find them racist. Insulting yes, and a bit immature, but not racist. In fact, many of the senators and representatives that commented on Clinton's remarks, didn't find them racist either. The called the remarks unfortunate, bordering on demeaning, depressing, and belittling. The only people I heard using the actual words "racist comments" were all the "news" personalities, pundits and reporters talking about it (and of course the republicans who jumped at the opportunity to deflect the attention off of them).

Theresa - posted on 01/12/2010

Again, I don't remember first hand what Clinton said (I'll look it up later). However, I do think his remarks about Obama, as stated in this particular book are more inappropriate and bordering on racism, than what Reid said. Supposedly Clinton said to Ted Kennedy, when trying to win his support for Hillary, that Obama would have been bringing us coffee a few years ago, you don't think he can actually win (or something to that effect). That comment went almost completely overlooked. It shows you however, that even Clinton didn't think Obama had a chance to win. Because he was black. He didn't think people in America would get past that. Reid on the other hand, was saying the opposite. Obama was of mixed race, he was educated, he didn't speak or behave in the stereotypical manner, in which black males are often categorized and he grew up away from the south and the south's history.



Just because someone labels you a "racist" or accuses you of saying "racist" comments, doesn't mean you're a racist. I think the context in which a statement is made, the motivation behind it and it's intent, should all be taken into account.



Trent Lott saying that America would have been better off if a segregationist had been elected President, clearly shows that any law or program, that benefited minorities and women, would not have taken place under Thurman's presidency. He categorized these programs as "problems" for this country. That is racist.



Reid saying that Obama didn't "fit" the mindset of the average African American male in America is not. Negro isn't a bad word. Yes, we have come up with better descriptions over the past few years, but using the word Negro is not inappropriate.



I think what got most African Americans ticked off, is the validation of what we already knew. In white America's eyes, light-skinned, educated, and articulate is preferred. It's a struggle we in the black community have been dealing with for decades. I have personally been told, if I want to get ahead, don't tell people you're black. Others have told me how "lucky" I am because I don't look black. Still others have told me that I should learn Spanish, so that I can pass for Latino (insinuating that Latino is better than Black). Reid just brought this mindset out to the forefront.

Dana - posted on 01/11/2010

Amie, that might have been the case in Canada but here in the US it was seen and treated as a racist comment. Like I said, google Bill Clinton and racist remark and that's what pops up.

JL - posted on 01/11/2010

I think the remark in reality holds truth. Here in the South many of us who worked for the Democratic party we were all thinking the same thing..Obama had a better chance winning over more moderate older whites because he did not fit the stereotypical version of a black man that many Southern older whites believe in and have fear. I mean none of them voted for Jesse Jackson and they sure were not going to vote for someone like Al Sharpton. It is inappropriate for a politician to say because it can be misconstrued into meaning something else. My main issue is that he already garners enough anger as it is and this is standing as a distraction. He knew better and should have kept that thought to himself. He will now just further stand as the symbol for the Liberal backlash. Now I don't think he should completely resign...just step down as leader, because Democrats need him to stay in keep up the fight for healthcare within the party. He just now needs to be less of a public symbol for the party and stand in the shadows more rather than in the spotlight.

Amie - posted on 01/11/2010

Clinton said "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."

How that can be construed as a racist remark is beyond me. When Clinton was admonished for it as well it wasn't race that was the big deal. Everyone seemed to think he was diminishing Obama's win and trying to portray it as having little long term significance. Ha to that... look whose the President now.

Dana - posted on 01/11/2010

Shoot, I'm out the door, wish I had time to stick around for this debate. I'm sure you can google Clinton, South Carolina and Jesse Jackson, probably throw racist comment in there and it'll pop it up somewhere. lol

Theresa - posted on 01/11/2010

Dana you will have to "refresh"my memory about what Clinton said because I truly don't remember. Having said that, I still believe what Reid said is true. In my own community, I have heard people say that Sharpton and Jackson could never be president. Not only because they are perceived as "unqualified", but their "ebonic, preacher style, southern" dialect does not go over well with many. They are perceived as ignorant, and angry and out to get retribution for the black race.



Again, it was an insensitive comment and foolish to have been said to a reporter but unfortunately true. This is America and many people still hold these mindsets/stereotypes about minorities.

Dana - posted on 01/11/2010

I agree Joy, I don't think anyone could think that Reid is a racist and he certainly can not be compared with Lott.

Amie - posted on 01/11/2010

I think you hit it on the head Joy.



I also think it's another obstruct, distract, delay, disrupt, etc. tactic. Anyone with half their brain working would realize that Reid is not in the same class as Lott. Nevertheless, as Joy said, he's been in the game long enough... he should have known better.

Dana - posted on 01/11/2010

Well, I don't think it *is* a true statement. If you were to use that argument though, what about Bill Clinton's statement in South Carolina during the primaries. His statement was true and they nailed his b*lls to the wall. He was one of the best former Presidents we've had, the democrats tried to ruin his name all because they wanted to see Obama win the primary rather than Hillary. Whether any statement is true or not, there's a double standard.

Theresa - posted on 01/11/2010

I know I probably will get a lot of disagreement for my comments...but here it goes! Although what Reid said was insensitive to the black race (and should have never been said to a reporter), what he said wasn't necessarily untrue. After hearing Obama speak at the DNC a few years ago and all the "chatter" that followed, even I believed that Obama could be a credible candidate for President.



The fact that he was 1/2 white, educated and articulate, light-skinned, and raised in Hawaii by his white grandparents, were all in his favor. He didn't have the "history", the "anger" or the "bitterness" that most black men in this country carry with them. He wasn't perceived as "threatening". More people could "relate" to Obama 's upbringing and background, than they could ever relate to the likes of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.



I think in this day and age of political correctness, people are eager to label something racist. I don't think Harry Reid's remarks were racist. I think he was tapping into a "mindset" that has long been prevalent in this country and how Obama transcended that mindset. People didn't "dismiss" Obama and deem him irrelevant and Reid gave the reasons why he believed that to be the case.

Sara - posted on 01/11/2010

I tend to agree with you, Joy. I think there's absolutely a double standard and I think we need to practice what we preach...

JL - posted on 01/11/2010

edited....because I had another thought..sorry



I would not compare Harry Reid's remarks to Trent Lott's in the manner of comparing the two men because I personally do think Lott is another class as far as racism goes (meaning I think Lott is a racist I don't think Reid is one at all) but I do think they should be held to the same standards to a point..I don't think Reid should resign but he should step down as majority leader.



He is was not new to the game when he made those comments.He should have known that whether they were off the record or not when you are in politics everything you say will end up at one point being thrown back into your face. The remarks were stupid and the best thing for the Democratic party is for him to step down and resign his post as majority leader. We have enough to deal with and we don't need ignorant remarks causing anymore issues. We need to practice what we preach.

~Jennifer - posted on 01/11/2010

Quick reply and I'll be back later to elaborate.....



Completely out of any party lines, not thinking of one 'side' or the other (or the middle or the offshoots.....)

What he said (unfortunately) was, and is true. He did have a better chance at winning, because his appearance and intellect were as far away from the 'last' guy as they could be. Whether it's right or wrong to say it, in a 'marketing' sense, and everything these days has turned into who has the best image in their 'market'.... it's nothing but (if these are actual terms / words - if not they should be) anti-stereotypically and demographically true.

Dana - posted on 01/11/2010

I'm not sure if he should resign but, it was an incredibly ignorant and insensitive thing to say. I do also believe that had it been a Republican we would have his b*lls nailed to the wall by now. I do think it's a double standard. Of course I think I'm pretty reasonable and not apt to make excuses for every freaking Democrat because I am one. I'm getting quite sick of hearing most Democrat's forgive just because of their party. I hate when ANY side does that.



Oh, I forgot, how ignorant can anyone be to think that's okay and okay to say it to a reporter because it's "off the record".