Soledad O’Brien vs. Breitbart Editor on Critical Race Theory
So the Breitbart editor in chief appeared on CNN yesterday to discuss the new Obama video. Results: hilarious.
First, you have Soledad O’Brien lecturing Joel Pollak on what critical race theory is:
O’Brien, with someone talking in her ear, quoted the Wikipedia definition almost word for word — and missed many of the important nuances that Joel was referencing, as the above video proves. Looking into my crystal ball, I am seeing a strong possibility that further evidence will emerge to show that Joel Pollak was exactly right in his discussion of critical race theory. Just a weird feeling I have . . .
But the best part was that one of her panelists asked Joel: “are you frightened that black people are going to do something to you?”
Joel is so frightened of black people! Here’s his wife:
Nice job by Joel. Look forward to O’Brien being further embarrassed by the truth in coming days.
Derrick Bell lived to harass white folks?
That’s apparently what he said . . .
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/9/2012 @ 7:54 amIt is literally painful to watch O’Brien in those clips. The embarrassment rubs off onto the viewer.
I cannot even translate the smugness she displays. Is this real life?
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/9/2012 @ 7:57 amCNN is what happens when people can’t buy just the cable channels they want
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:02 amHere’s more on Bell, from TNR no less.
Karl (6f7ecd) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:08 amBut, wait… there’s more!
Karl (6f7ecd) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:11 amWhat if there was a video of a famous lefty backing up Joel on the nature of critical race theory?
Patterico (b87a39) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:13 amWinner, Pollak for those of us who think this is relevant.
It’s only important, though, if it changes people’s opinions.
With most of the panel on O’Brien’s side, her emphasis on “where’s the blockbuster?,” “so a Harvard student was friendly with a Harvard professor – where’s the beef?,” and the complex material that wasn’t fully argued, I doubt that many people were persuaded by this….and that many CNN viewers took away “not a big deal” as the main message. Pollak repeating “white supremacy” without fully explaining it didn’t really help his case with the majority of Americans who think Obama, at his core, is a good guy who means well. Jay Thomas, a comedian, got in his “are you being a racist?” shots. I don’t agree with them, but CNN viewers’ ears prick up when they hear those kinds of accusations, just as they’ve been taught.
And if they’re up early watching Soledad O’Brien’s show, they’re likely fans of hers and inclined to take her side in an argument.
So Joel wins for us. But we were already there.
I’m still waiting for the next shoe to drop.
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:13 amI don’t get it. Don’t know what critical racial is and I never bothered to learn. I do know that it takes five blacks to do the work of one Mexican.
nk (dec503) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:14 amGuys, Derrick Bell was simply a renowned Harvard law professor. Soledad O’Brien says so!
radar (3a664a) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:16 amI for one was deeply appreciative of the stimulating and profound insights of Eddie LeBec. CNN truly is a super-serious news organization.
radar (3a664a) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:19 amyes the meme they rely on is probably institutional racism, but the premise is the same. Pollak comes
narciso (87e966) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:19 amfrom South Africa, representing the last of the liberal movement there,
For the record, I doubt this moves persuadable voters.
However, I think Breitbart would be noting the effort the establishment media is putting forth to assert that this is not a story — which is interesting regardless of whether they believe that or not.
Karl (6f7ecd) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:19 amKarl,
This is about the media.
It’s all about the media.
Patterico (b87a39) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:25 amSoledad is horrible in a horrible way. I cannot understand why CNN employs her. To whom does she appeal?
MayBee (081489) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:27 amIn many countries, CNN’s Soledad O’Brien is what people see when they watch American television. This is how we are represented to the world. And we wonder why they hate us.
MayBee (081489) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:30 amhehehe
What if?
Why it would be as though CNN’s 4 vs 1 attack ‘interview’ walked right into a trap where they were expected to lie about what Critical Race Theory is and then have that lie exposed.
I studied Critical Race Theory as an undergrad, and I always thought of it as absurd levels of negativity and paranoia about how everything in society works. The ends that would satisfy this theory are disturbingly like what the KKK would want of society. That this theory has any credibility with Ms O’Brien and Mr Obama shows that the democrats still feel the need to split society into races. There are few things less patriotic.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:32 amShe really is particularly awful. She comes across as so ugly in this interview. She interrupts everyone rudely, usually specifically to stop them from saying something she doesn’t want the audience to hear.
She interjects ‘that’s inaccurate’ but doesn’t want to back that up and fights against a discussion of what exactly was inaccurate (leading to the wikipedia over the ear gaffe). She closes by saying she didn’t even hear one of Pollack’s points, but there’s no need to discuss it.
Her entire tone is just unjustified. I don’t understand why she’s the best CNN could get for this job.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:37 amMy husband is a Democrat, my kids are libertarian, I’m who I am, and we all hate her. We call her Shrillodad.
MayBee (081489) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:42 amThat New Republic piece that Karl linked is very enlightening. It’s all the more interesting because it was written in 1993, back in those heady days when a respected magazine–even a left leaning one–could obviously still practice journalism. And publish fair articles which revealed some uncomfortable truths.
elissa (b47460) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:43 amWho watches CNN these days? Only cable captives.
Comanche Voter (0e06a9) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:47 amStories like this are also good for firing up the base, which may be more important than persuading or flipping voters.
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:48 amGood point, Noodles. Folks need to appreciate that the GOP has a GOTV problem this year. More and more vetting of Obama is one of the answers. It’s not as good as discussing the economy or Fast and Furious or the rest of Obama’s actual watch as president, but understanding this radical guy helps put his failures in context.
Maybe the reason he’s done such a poor job administering our justice system and otherwise stewarding our country is because he’s not all that concerned with it.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:56 amCharles Ogletree with Soledad O’Brien on Race, Class and Crime at 92Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xToWC0O4UgQ&feature=related
(taken from Liberty Chick’s Twitter feed)
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:59 amWhich media is this likely to persuade?
The ones who don’t already think Soledad is a dipsh!t (even if she is “on their side”)?
I doubt Joan Walsh, Chris Matthews, & the MSNBC lineup are likely to think Soledad presented a weak argument. In fact, I think CNN, MSNBC, MMfA, & others could easily (and probably will) edit this clip down to make Soledad look heroic & intelligent, in their eyes.
People like Joan Walsh, Matthews, pretty Norah O’Donnell, & Soledad O’Brien are, in a way, like Hannity. Matthews uses Walsh as a panelist as if she were intelligent, in order to support his views. The smart people on the Left (they exist, perhaps Obama’s one..but let’s not argue about who is), probably don’t think Walsh is a thought leader or particularly bright, but they tolerate her being on the air every night because she’s sympathetic to their mission and willing to get up there and make their arguments til she drops.
I say they’re like Hannity, no offense, because he’s clearly not a great thinker. You only have to listen to him read his staff-prepared rants daily on radio, as if they were his own thoughts, to realize this. But Hannity is in a prime spot, has the anchor look, and does the job of getting the anti-Obama message out there, day in and day out. He’s consistent on that and tenacious about it. If MMfA wanted to dissect him intellectually (perhaps they have), it wouldn’t take much effort. But we tolerate him because he’s useful to us like Walsh is useful to them. (And I don’t mean to single Hannity out, if you don’t agree about Sean, in particular, there are plenty of examples that make this case.)
So, back to the point, which members of the media were on the fence or have been moved on their opinions of the Media or Obama by this?
I might cite that ABC’s WH Correspondent Jake Tapper is moving in a more “critical thinking” direction than most at the major networks or papers have been. (And perhaps he’s one Juan Williams/Rick Sanchez verbal slip-up away from being moved out of his role, not that he’s gaffe-prone, but when you venture to challenge the bosses’ opinions, they’re sure to be watching his every word.) The producers and news execs of the MSM are still firmly entrenched in Leftist ideology and Obama worship.
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:02 amWhy discuss things at all? If people don’t already see an issue or person one way, they never will.
Next!
MayBee (081489) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:14 amObama voters are not “fired up and ready to go!”. I don’t think the GOP is either. What is going going to get them fired up? Certainly not talking about $9 dollar a month birth control.
Oh, are we done talking about that? We’re talking about what a miserable radical we have as a President? Interesting.
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:14 amI love how Joel didn’t even play the “my wife is black” card. He didn’t need to. Let them be the racists.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:16 am==I love how Joel didn’t even play the “my wife is black” card.==
Yeah me too, Ghost. That was a thing of beauty (although Joel did have a pretty good smirk going that they probably couldn’t quite compute). Wouldn’t you have loved to be a fly in the room when Solidad or Jay found that out later what race his wife is? Gee, too bad they didn’t consult Wikipedia. LOL.
elissa (b47460) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:25 amWhy isn’t Breibart writing about Sandra Fluke and birth control? How dare they change the narrative to something not approved as “voter persuading material”. lol
I have to admit, it took me a minute, but I am loving this roll out now.
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:26 amThe reason this is more inflammatory than wright is because one can believe a lefty like Obama wasn’t paying attention to the sermons.
He’s gonna have tough time convincing the Jews that he’s not down with anti-semitism.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:32 am__________________________________________
I’ve dealt personally and recently with at least one person who exudes the innate leftist biases of people like O’Brien and, certainly, Derek Bell. The only thing I can wonder about such folks (and quite sincerely too), is why they’re emotionally so liberal.
I’m not sure how much of that is due to genetics or the environment (ie, it’s learned). How much of that is due to — or in spite of — experiences during their lifetime—and, in particular, people who think and act like college professors haven’t led sheltered lives in cushy ivory towers? How much of that is because such liberals fall for the idea that their opinions imbue them great humanity and sophistication.
I know a variety of people start off early in life leaning to the left, and then, as they grow older, gradually move rightward. At least in those cases, one can’t presume their politics are due to nature or genetics. IOW, their brain is not innately programmed to the left.
Mark (31bbb6) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:34 amElissa,
Ghost (6f9de7) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:34 amTo be a fly on the wall any time someone in the msm is smacked in the face with the truth would be worth the horrific Jeff goldblumesque transformation.
There’s also the brand dimension at play here.
To some people “Apple” means sophisticated, sleek, technically advanced. To others, it means overpriced, intolerably high profit margins, unfair, oppressive labor practices.
It’s similar with the “Breitbart” brand. The Breitbart organization needs to be conscious of an sensitive what a story “from Breitbart” means in the greater media context, without playing into the false stereotypes, if it ultimately wants to be persuasive.
To us “Breitbart” means, “fighting the liberal MSM bias,” “citizen journalism,” and, to quote Andrew, “‘WAR.'”
To them, “Breitbart” means “unscrupulous tactics,” “misleadingly edited,” “hype without substance,” and “with racist undertones/overtones.”
This new story will be used to reinforce THEIR idea of what the Breitbart brand is all about because it fits neatly into the Left’s perception of the Breitbart brand. It’s yet another race-driven story (see also ACORN, SHERROD, PIGFORD). It was hyped as being worthy of destroying Obama’s re-election chances because it was video of him in college saying revealing things, when it actually showed him as friendly to someone, an academic, who holds views outside of mainstream values, and asks the viewer to ascribe Bell’s views to Obama because of a warm introduction and a hug. They’ll trot out dozens of examples of warm introductions and hugs that don’t mean that the politician is accountable for, or buys into, the other person’s positions on everything.
While I realize you have to report the story you have, the choice of this story and the way it was hyped, will end up reinforcing the Left’s perception of the Breitbart brand, giving them more ammunition, rather than confronting that false brand image. They’re adding it to their list of “evidence” of why people shouldn’t believe Breitbart at this very moment. And it will make the next Breitbart scoop face an even more skeptical media & public.
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:54 amI hadn’t thought of it that way, Koam. Good points. Interesting how a lot of things polarize and reassure both sides of an argument.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:57 am“So, back to the point, which members of the media were on the fence or have been moved on their opinions of the Media or Obama by this?”
koam – I like the concept of embarrassing the media into doing its job so its viewers or readers can decide for themselves rather than seeing the clip as a or story as a persuader in and of itself.
As Patterico said above, it’s about the media and the media has been lying to the public as Amy Holmes pointed out in the CNN clip. Why can’t the media do its job? The more stuff like this comes out, the more embarrassing moments of media complicity to hide or minimize information, the better it is for the Republican cause in my opinion and as pointed out above, it helps motivate the base after a grueling primary season.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:02 amHas Randall Robinson visited the White House under Obama?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:04 amBS Koam. You act as though they need an excuse, and Breitbart handed them one. Since when did presenting a video become controversial?
JD (d246fe) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:05 am1) It looks to me like at least of some of Brietbart’s associates are ready to step up to the plate no problem. I haven’t seen someone do such a good job of going toe-to-toe since paul ryan and obama.
2) It gives evidence that at least some on the L are not just naive’ or mistaken, but they d*** well have no interest in reporting and bringing light to the discussion
3) I am not sure why people say that Soledad did a bad job. I think she did about as good a job as one could do if the desire is to obfuscate the issue and dismiss your opponent.
4) yes, those who tend to already agree with CNN’s perspective and who like to be dismissive of facts will not be impacted by this, but who expected them to be? CNN will hold out to it’s version of reality, just as MSNBC will, just like “Baghdad Bob” or whatever his name was who talked about how saddam’s troops were defeating the US until just before a US soldier virtually took away his microphone.
No, the truth will never be aired on CNN, etc. the biggest challenege is how to get people who don’t watch Breitbart, etc. to watch Brietbart, etc.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:17 amI lost count, how many times did Soledad O’Brien say bombshell?
Breitbart’s brief announcement at CPAC doesn’t mention a bombshell, at least not in the posted snippet.
ropelight (6fed84) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:18 amI don’t think he’s justifying the perception. I think he’s got a point.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:18 amI could feel pollack and his wife holding back the laughter during that commercial. in your face.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:18 amIt was awesome. Especially in light of the snide comment about ‘what’s left of Breitbart’s organization’ and the attempts to portray Pollack as racist. He stayed on message when it had to be tempting to stray.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:19 am“First, you have Soledad O’Brien lecturing Joel Pollak on what critical race theory is:”
Well, I doubt if an airhead like her has clue one about Bell’s little theories, which basically revolve around this idea…
“Black people will never gain full equality in this country,”–Derick Bell
According to Bell, American whites will ALWAYS be racist against blacks and the only way to counter that is to have a Jim Crow legal system that favors blacks.
IOW, he thought the same same thing Democrats and their fellow travelers have ALWAYS thought, namely that the law ought to favor members of one race over members of another race, for one reason or another.
Unfortunately, that kind of thinking is totally acceptable amongst Barry O and his halfwit adherents, as well as amongst the members of the federal bureacracy (just look at what the DOJ does on a regular basis, if you doubt me), so you’re not likely to hurt Barry O by linking him to Bell.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:19 amPollak, sorry.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:20 amI’m confused by your post, Koam. What are you saying is unscrupulous? You think that they misrepresented Bell in some way? You think Bell’s worldviews and Obama’s apparent acceptance of them is A-OK and that they comport with most Americans’ feelings about race relations? A lot of stories coming from Obama’s own lips seem to be weirdly race-centric (see Skip Gates and the police officer)(see his “typical white person” grandma). This is unfortunate in a national leader and is in fact difficult for others to navigate around. But ignoring it, and being unwilling to discuss the issue rationally because it’s icky and might “reinforce a perception” doesn’t really seem to be working either. There is a reason we as a country honor MLK and not Bell, I think. But who is President Obama’s hero?
elissa (b47460) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:22 amActually, maybe things are different now.
The last election was about many things, but mostly it was about change. So we had this dishonest Obama criticize the high deficit he was going to cut in half and the high taxes he was going to lower for 98% of us. We had a lot of complaining about Bush policies like Gitmo’s detention facility and extraordinary rendition and making war.
Even GOP candidates were promising “change”.
This election, however, will focus on Obama much more than the last one did. I think plenty of Rust Belt voters who are patriotic will see this administration in a different light if they see Obama’s background. I think many of them haven’t yet.
One core issue in this election is whether the economy’s problems are Obama’s fault, or if he’s been doing the best he can and just inherited a huge mess. That goes directly to trust.
I realize I am missing the point… that Breitbart.com is putting the MSM on display, but I think these videos could help reduce the trust many have placed in Obama.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:25 amOr, to put it another way, if linking Barry O to Jeremiah Wright didn’t hurt him any, neither will linking him to Derrick Bell.
Especially when you consider that Wright is quite a bit worse than Bell was, when it comes to expressing blatant racism, and America-hating lunacy.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:27 amThere’s a reason he wrote “Their’ in allcaps to describe their ideas. He is not endorsing them. He is explaining how these videos feed into misguided assumptions about Breitbart.
I think it’s fair to say that many of Breitbart’s exposes have faced race issues. Not because of anything wrong with Breitbart. I think the real reason is because these issues have festered for so long in a PC environment, and these are stories that a brave person hunting for things the media underreports would naturally come to.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:28 amMaybe. Or maybe it’s a lot harder to dismiss Wright when Obama was also endorsing and even teaching Bell’s ideas.
And while Wright was more bombastic, I think Bell was a more fleshed out prejudice. I don’t know which is worse, but I do think this helps pull Wright out from under the bus.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:29 amkoam:
Good point about die-hard liberals, elites and the mainstream media — although they won’t just be skeptical, they will be antagonistic. However, the general public is willing to learn if they get information, especially in video form as America has been a visual community since the advent of television.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:38 amThere is really really good news Soletrain O’Brien!!!
Ted Turner watches!!!
Gus (36e9a7) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:38 am==He is not endorsing them. He is explaining how these videos feed into misguided assumptions about Breitbart==
I’m sure Koam appreciates your support and interpretation. But I was really asking him to explain specifically how and why
elissa (b47460) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:45 amhe thinks such videos feed into misguided assumptions about Breitbart and what we should do about it. I was hoping to rule out “just ignore the topic of race at every turn because they’ll call us racists” as an option.
Indeed. It’s a minefield, and braving it naturally will lead to this issue.
But I don’t think it’s really much of a stretch to interpret Koam’s use of “their” to explain he’s not talking about himself. I think your “You think Bell’s worldviews and Obama’s apparent acceptance of them is A-OK” was considered and answered in advance.
You also say
True. True and there’s clearly a double standard. Hell, just point out the weird race centric stuff in Obama’s background and it will reinforce the meme that you (as in the Breitbart side) is too obsessed with race.
It’s an accurate description of the dynamic on the left. It’s also completely crazy.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:51 amThe how and why are very interesting questions, btw.
I think Bell’s own paranoia at how everything favors the white man is one good way to see the how aspect. Though I hope most folks on the left are not that severely prejudiced, I do think some paranoia is in play.
You see this in the interview with the “as a white guy, talking to a white guy” fella (I don’t know who that is). They just put that out there, over and over, that this is about race. They didn’t do that when the Tea Party was attacked as racist.. but they did it when Breitbart responded by showing the NAACP’s sad reaction to Sherrod’s racism account. Selective reporting by constantly referencing a racial motive for only one side seems to be a big part of the ‘how’. Another part is probably underlying resentment.
The why is simpler: divide and conquer. Split Americans into a bunch of opposing groups, and you can start making them compete for the government’s guiding hand to favor them. It leads to dependency and undermines the country, but is a clever and very old political tactic.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:55 amDustin, I hope my comment did not come across as snarky. I didn’t mean it to. What I am trying to get at is, if our side is afraid to stand up to the bullies for fear they might print more nasty stuff about us, might spread more untrue rumors, and say we were just “asking for it” then what is to be done?
elissa (b47460) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:57 amDidn’t Obamacare embed some race quotas into provider requirements? Or am I imagining that?
MayBee (081489) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:58 am___________________________________________
if linking Barry O to Jeremiah Wright didn’t hurt him any, neither will linking him to Derrick Bell.
I’m puzzled why people like Breitbart deemed the video significant enough to be treated perhaps along the lines of “another shoe dropping,” above and beyond the matter of it never being publicly aired before (or suppressed?). The only thing that regrettably will be demonstrated by the story of Obama and Bell is not so much that we have a “goddamn America” extremist sitting in the White House — because enough Americans regrettably don’t care if their nation is being managed by such a person — but for what it will say about the lack of enough or any sleuthing, certainly by the MSM, on Obama’s history.
Of course, it’s a given and a good thing that breitbart.com obtained and released the video, but to imply it was more momentous than it really is (as Andrew Breitbart did not long ago) only would have come closer to hitting the target if it were similar to the video described below:
Mark (31bbb6) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:59 amDoes anyone really know the full extent of that monstrous leviathan yet, MayBee?
JD (d246fe) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:01 amElissa, nothing you say ever comes across poorly.
then we are screwed.
You’re right. I just think Koam’s also right that this is a real problem with the way some will interpret things very unfairly. This ‘conservatives are kinda racist’ thing has been going on for ages now.
I’m not being very constructive in how to deal with that. I guess I could expect everyone to be Joel Pollak with superhuman interview skills. I think that works really well, but most of us can’t take on four hostile interviewers (three very hostile) like he did.
That’s probably what it takes. We just have to make our case twice as well as they do. I also think we can’t flinch. That seems to be what you’re objecting to… the idea of flinching because of BS misconceptions. That’s critical.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:01 amComment by radar — 3/9/2012 @ 8:16 am
Guys, Derrick Bell was simply a renowned Harvard law professor. Soledad O’Brien says so!
As Rush Limbaugh pointed out today (without using that word) that’s a tautology.
If you’re a Harvad – or Yale, or Princeton – professor, you’re automatically renowned in the eyes of Soledad O’Brien.
Derrick Bell did not get Harvard Professorship by an unbiased, neutral, process.
Sammy Finkelman (63b67e) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:01 amhttps://patterico.com/2012/03/09/soledad-obrien-vs-breitbart-editor-on-critical-race-theory/comment-page-2/#comment-928716
daleyrocks, I like the idea of embarrassing the media as well. But they’re shameless.
Let’t not forget, when Axelrod & the media kabal pitched the theme that Bill & Hillary Clinton were racists in 2008 (merely because they opposed Obama), it was reiterated as truth by many.
If Team Obama can get away with that bullcrap, then their success pinning that false label on the Right-wing Breitbart operation, which, by the evidence of its self-selected list of stories (ACORN, Sherrod, Pigford, Bell, etc.), is focused on race-based themes, is inevitable. And it’s reinforced by the overwhelming belief, based on observation of Obama for the past four years, that he’s not obsessed with race, doesn’t focus on it until someone else brings it up, and can talk coolly and sensitively about it in a way that is palatable and likable to most Americans of all races. (We don’t have to believe that, but he is highly successful at projecting that image.)
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:16 amComment by MayBee — 3/9/2012 @ 8:27 am
Soledad is horrible in a horrible way. I cannot understand why CNN employs her. To whom does she appeal?
Racial scorekeepers.
That’s the thing. Her job may depend on, or she may fear that her job may depend on, the ideas of Derrick Bell and so on, being accepted as true.
Otherwise, she may go the way of Sue Simmons,
or have to settle for a lower salary in contract negotiations, because she won’t be such a prize.
She may need the race factor more than ever now. Because femininity wears out at about the age of 40. Race is the only thing maybe that can save her.
Sammy Finkelman (63b67e) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:17 amIf Breitbart is worried about how liberals perceive them or how liberals will spin them they might as well shut the site down today. Obviously they are not.
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:18 amelissa, I don’t really understand your question of me but I agree with your points, for the most part.
If you’d re-read my 9:54 comment, I think it’s laid out as “our” perception of Breitbart vs. “their” perception. Two different camps have two entirely different views of the same thing.
My greater point is that we don’t need Breitbart to be convincing ourselves of more of the same things that we already knew & beleived. We need Breitbart to position new stories in a way that will successfully be persuasive to those in the middle. I’m not sure that this story does this and the victory dance over Soledad O’Brien’s stupidity is, not effective, and perhaps counter-effective, the “war” if it results in just reinforcing the negative things THEY (the Left) believe about Breitbart stories.
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:25 am“Derrick Bell did not get Harvard Professorship by an unbiased, neutral, process.”
Yeah, that’s true. He had positions at Oregon, Stanford and Harvard, even though he wasn’t qualified for any of them, and he proved to be so incompetent at all three institutions, that there were constant attemtps, by his fellow liberal academics, and students to have him removed.
That’s how bad he was.
Needless to say, Bell’s absurd contentions in regard to racism are directly connected to his own personal failures. If he failed (and he failed big time), it can’t possibly be because Derrick Bell isn’t perfect, it must be because the white establishment (including, according to Bell, white liberals devoted to achieving civil rights for all) is racist.
Bell was a complete ass, and only a callow moron would give any credence to him or his asinine racist theories…but, that still won’t hurt Obama at the polls.
The only people that are going to be moved by a connection between Bell and Obama are people who are already smart enough to detest Barry O and everything he stands for. It isn’t likely to change the mind of someone who is already inclined to vote for Obama, because they think Bell’s outlook is perfectly acceptable. Hell, they don’t care about direct links between the Democrats and the New Black Panther Party, they sure aren’t going to get bent out of shape by a connection between Obambi and Bell.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:27 am“I’m puzzled why people like Breitbart deemed the video significant enough to be treated perhaps along the lines of “another shoe dropping,” above and beyond the matter of it never being publicly aired before (or suppressed?).”
Mark – Revisit Breitbart’s remarks at CPAC. He said he had videos and that we were going to vet the president this time. I took his remarks to mean that he had a process in mind, not that everything was focused on a single video. Others may interpret it differently.
David Axelrod (bf33e9) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:28 amdamn sock
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:29 amWe should take great care to take into account how the Left and the MFM will distort or lie about an issue before we make it an issue. Basing our actions on their likely dishonest reaction is a great idea.
JD (d246fe) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:30 am“daleyrocks, I like the idea of embarrassing the media as well. But they’re shameless.”
koam – I certainly thought the above clip was embarrassing to CNN believe a lot of viewers probably thought so as well.
Didn’t you?
I think the more over the top, fear-based reactions we get from the liberal MSM (BIRM), the better.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:32 am“Basing our actions on their likely dishonest reaction is a great idea.”
JD – And they walked right into it with Pollak!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:34 amComment by DRJ — 3/9/2012 @ 10:38 am
Yes, we want Breitbart stories to be useful to us as evidence when we engage people and try to persuade them. I can’t go to my liberal friends and cite a Breitbart story because the sucessfully perpetuated meme is that Breitbart stories are unfairly edited and racially motivated. Not true, but to cite the new Breitbart story, you have have an encyclopedic knowledge to refute the arguments against all the prior Breitbart stories. It’s MMfA at its most effective. I just wish they had picked a different story on a different angle so that it would, in the end, be more useful in persuasion. It’s frankly too late to eliminate President Obama because he’s been revealed to be secretly racialist based on his friendship with others. It’s a bad strategy if they don’t have tape of Obama saying these things himself. With what they have shown so far, all Obama has to do is show up and smile and say “that’s silly.” And he will.
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:34 am“I cannot understand why CNN employs her.”
Hey, they dont hire talking heads for their brains. It’s all about looks and voice quality. Having a predispostion towards being a leftoid nitwit won’t hurt your career either, escpecailly if you’re working for one of the DPPN (Democrat Party Proaganda Network) sub-organizations.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:35 amWe need Breitbart to position new stories in a way that will successfully be persuasive to those in the middle.
Firstly, I think there are few domains left out there where you could have full editorial control. Secondly, how do you know that is true? How do you know this isn’t going to be about who’s base shows up? Unless you mean they need more “middle” readers, then I’d say see my first point again.
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:35 amIf you are black and LIBERAL, competence is irrelevant. Take the 2 biggest race hustlers for example. Not so Sharpton and Jesse Jackass.
Gus (36e9a7) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:38 amComment by daleyrocks — 3/9/2012 @ 11:32 am
I thought it was embarrassing for her, in parts. She also got her main points across: “What bombshell?” and “So what, a professor and student were friends.”
But I posted earlier that CNN viewers and Soledad fans won’t find it embarrassing. And the tape will be edited down to make her look like an intellectual, anti-racist hero. The only people watching 8-minute tapes of yesterday’s morning show are people who already agree with Joel Pollak. When the short highlights tape shows up on Hardball, Maddow, & The Daily Show, it will be mocking Joel and serving Soledad.
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:38 amI know you’re being sarcastic, but why not be careful of this?
I don’t mean to avoid it. I mean take it into account and be prepared for it. If you’re trying to show their dishonest reaction, and can predict in what ways they will be dishonest, why not set a trap?
Now we’ve got CNN shilling for a prejudiced view, claiming Pollak’s description was inaccurate, and I think that sets them up for a very effective subsequent video if there is one that fleshes out Obama’s understanding of the ‘theory’.
Absolutely. And I think in this case it is easy to show how it’s over the top and how they are afraid of this issue being discussed. Sure, with people in this thread, CNN has no credibility, but I hope it’s effective at costing them the credibility they have with others.
This is setting the stage for the rest of the videos. I bet many of them have nothing to do with Bell, but the media will be more careful about their reactions if the first few videos expose their dishonesty.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:39 amWhile I realize you have to report the story you have, the choice of this story and the way it was hyped...
Comment by koam @wittier
Painted Jaguar (flicking tail, only slightly annoyed expression on face, but faint growl detected):
Excuse me, who “had” to report this story, and why did they need to report it “the way it was hyped”?
(growl increasing)
No one here reports anything they “have to”, and most certainly (growl continues to intensify), no one has to report anything the “way it was hyped”.
Who do you think we are, some part of a conservative “Journolist” that agrees on how to present propaganda? (Roars!!)
Humans communicate here by saying what they think and why they think it. There are only a few regulars and visitors who play the game of, “Did that person really mean that, or are they posturing? And if posturing, are they posturing, or posture-posturing, which is like counter-posturing, or are they posturing counter-posturing?”
The regulars don’t do that here. You must be projecting your assumptions.
(Glares, growls low and snarls, looks to karl, DRJ, Stash, JD, daley, dustin, the boss as turns to disappear back into the jungle.)
I’m finished. If I said something I need to apologize for, let me know. I have better things to do now, by the deep, dark, turbid waters of the Amazon.
Painted Jaguar (A sockpuppet) (3d3f72) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:40 amWell, Obama did more than befriend a kooky professor. He taught this crap. I don’t have much of a problem with kooky professors teaching controversial stuff, but this was an easy thing for the media to discuss in 2008. And they didn’t.
Her ‘what bombshell’ point assumes this was supposed to be a bombshell, and falls short only if that was the goal. I don’t think it was the goal. And if there are many subsequent videos, it won’t matter how the media tried to frame it the first time. Now the expectation is set at the non-bombshell level.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:42 amCNN: Soledad, you need to reach out to middle.
Soledad: What do you mean?
CNN: Your bias is showing to the people in the middle.
Soledad: You mean people in the political center?
CNN: Yes, and those right of center.
Soledad: Those aren’t people. Silly gooose!
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:46 am“But I posted earlier that CNN viewers and Soledad fans won’t find it embarrassing.”
koam – I disagree with your assessment of CNN viewers. Ignoring any conservatives viewing because they don’t have a choice, some CNN viewers do have a brain and can think for themselves. I’m not saying that clip in and of itself persuaded people to flip votes. What I am suggesting is that it gets people thinking that the media has not been telling us the truth about Obama.
Unfortunately, there’s no way to prove your opinion or mine right or wrong.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:50 amI think Daley is correct. This was that bad. It helps open the door so that Obama voters can blame the media for presenting Obama with ridiculous bias, and not themselves for making a bad decision in 2008.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:51 amkoam – Who was doing the most hyping of the video as a bombshell – the MSM or the Breitbart folks?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:52 amWell, Pollak’s wife is just cute as a dang button.
High-Five to Joel Pollak.
Leviticus (61f4c3) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:52 amPainted Jaguar:
So koam is confused by elissa’s confusion over what koam posted?
Perhaps that is because Elissa is accustomed to speaking in a straight forward manner to those of good will. (flicks tail)
Painted Jaguar (A sockpuppet) (3d3f72) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:56 amDustin, I agree with all your points and thanks for the help.
Andrew pitched this as if it was going to be a bombshell at CPAC and Ben and others teased it though it would have sticking power with the MSM. My expectation, based on watching Andrew’s CPAC talk 10 times, was the newly-found video of President Obama from school would have caught him saying radical things or the equivalent. Instead Barack Obama was saying charming things about another person who doesn’t then say radical things in the same video. One has to go study up to find out what the other person believes….and there was no Prof. Bell highlights reel presented on Hannity or Soledad to make the point. We had to take Joel & Ben’s word for it. That was shitty execution if you’re trying to persuade people who aren’t already in the Breitbart camp. Who’s the CNN audience to believe?
Star of the show, Soledad, & her panel, or Joel, the right-winger from Breitbart who didn’t even bring a video of Bell saying radical things but had to quibble with Soledad about the finer points academic race theories at 8AM?
So the video is red meat for us lions. But I think it might have been better as part of a cogent video package (including a lesson on Bell’s theories, with well-chosen Bell quotes) at CPAC or elsewhere, and positioned as such.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:58 amdaleyrocks
The Breitbart team did a great job of hyping and teasing this story over the course of a few weeks. It was mentioned repeatedly, starting at CPAC…then Larry talked about it passionately on his radio show, Ben teased it on twitter. …it was teased on Hannity the week prior by Bannon, continued to be teased on Fox. It was the top headline with photo above the masthead on Drudge for at least half a day prior to release. And I’m sure I’m not mentioning half of it….The Breitbart PR machine was in full effect for this and they did an excellent job of drawing attention to it and setting expectations high.
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 12:03 pm==Ignoring any conservatives viewing because they don’t have a choice, some CNN viewers do have a brain ==
daley–had I been watching Solidad’s nervous breakdown while in an airport waiting area it would likely have been Starbucks liquid flying around long before a plane ever got there. I’d love to hear from any lurkers who may in fact have been in a public place while that segment aired, to get a first hand report on the reaction/attention paid –if any.
elissa (b47460) — 3/9/2012 @ 12:10 pmPainted Jaguar:
koam, you are so counting on this being “all there is”, aren’t you?
It is what it is, it was what it was, the “first post-racial president” once again shown to be steeped in racism, covered for by people with no interest in understanding, only trying to find a way to bury a story.
“Look, bunnies on Harvard lawn!!”
Painted Jaguar (A sockpuppet) (3d3f72) — 3/9/2012 @ 12:14 pmI am glad we now know our President believes it’s okay to break the law because the system is racist.
Would not want to be the LAST person to find that out!
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/9/2012 @ 12:18 pmPainted Jaguar:
What you all must understand, is that my mummy (ever so patient and kind), has taught me how to tell which animal was which since before I was able to open my little cute as a button cub eyes. In the jungle by the deep, dark, turbid waters of the Amazon, one cannot always see what one can hear, so one learns to tell by smell. Is that snake merely a young Anaconda that will never grow to be an old Anaconda, or does it have a bite that only a Honey Badger would dare risk (yes, even by the deep, dark, turbid waters of the Amazon we have seen the Honey Badger on Youtube. Lions are not as brave as jaguars, but jaguars are not as foolhardy, or smelly, as Honey Badgers).
Sniff carefully before talking to a “koam”, it may be a relative of an armadillo, which my mummy has told me to stay away from.
Painted Jaguar (A sockpuppet) (3d3f72) — 3/9/2012 @ 12:23 pmAs an aside reading here about liberal lions of academia like Bell, I wondered why Harvard didn’t grab Ward Churchill for a professorship or Obama make him part of his administration? Not much news available on the clown and I assume U. of Colo. has yet to rule on his appeal.
Also I had nothing to do with death of malcolm X but do fear someone (white rcaist devils) might try to ice my good friend urkel and blame it on Muslims. Allah be praised.
Calypso Louie Farrakhan (d32e4c) — 3/9/2012 @ 12:28 pmIf the point of the further videos is to prove that Pollak was right about critical race theory and that, indeed, it’s a really awful and racist mode of thought, then I will be very disappointed.
I’m part of the 0.01% of the population who actually knew the term “critical race theory” back in the previous millennium and who (to steal a joke I read elsewhere today) didn’t think until last week that it had something to do with NASCAR. Yes, it’s a terrible, odious, and inherently racist doctrine.
But unless there’s much, much, much stronger and more specific evidence, video or otherwise, tying Obama in particular to “critical race theory,” then this is all a weak sideshow.
When I and others blogged, did research, and made diligent inquiries into the question of Obama’s “missing” law review note in 2007-2008, many of us were frankly expecting that such a document might relate to racial matters (including but not limited to critical race theory), and we suspected it was being suppressed because it would contain something unflattering. When the note was finally located, it turned out to be about an Illinois state-court decision on abortion rights, but typically for student-written law review casenotes even at the Harvard Law Review, it was boring and dry to and beyond the point of banality.
We also have looked into the research work that Obama did for Harvard Law Prof. Lawrence Tribe, another leftie of course, but nevertheless on any knowledgeable observer’s short list of the most influential law professors of any stripe or politics anywhere in the United States. Tribe has spoken and written glowingly — but very, very vaguely, and Tribe does nothing that is not deliberate — about the help he received from law student Obama. Without subpoena power to get into Tribe’s files, that’s a flat brick wall: Ain’t no embarrassments of Barack Obama gonna come from Larry Tribe if’n either of them can help it.
Ditto the exam questions that Obama wrote and administered to his con-law seminar students when he was an instructor at Chicago Law School: They did sometimes deal with race, abortion, voting rights, and other hot-button issues, but other than the overall choice of topics, the specifics were never incendiary, but rather were pretty much indistinguishable from what you’d see in any such seminars taught by others at Chicago or elsewhere.
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/9/2012 @ 12:43 pmOBrien is pathetic but there is nothing new there. “I’m going to ignore that question because someone was talking in my ear. And by someone, I mean me. I was holding my fingers in my ears and saying NANANANANAANA”.
Jay Thomas is the really obnoxious part of that exchange.
Kaisersoze (298188) — 3/9/2012 @ 12:56 pm“Black people will never gain full equality in this country,”–Derick Bell
— Cornel “Race Matters” West will be suing for plagiarism
Icy (d64131) — 3/9/2012 @ 12:58 pmAnd our president supported it. He chose, of all things to teach, this. He chose, of all books to assign, these.
It’s OK to discuss Crits. I did as an undergrad before moving on to more compelling stuff like HLA Hart. College is a good place to discuss kooky things. I think those who promote prejudice should be called out, but even then, it’s OK to have kooky crits teaching their kooky classes.
But it is a shame the media failed to adequately discuss this issue in 2008, because I don’t think Americans want such a kook to be administering our government.
I also share your hope that the videos get beyond this Bell issue, but I don’t mind if a couple more flesh out what this is about, and I think doing so would have CNN eating crow.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 1:07 pmGauge your reaction to this headline from today’s RCP:
“The Jobs Report Is a Boon for Obama” – by Robert Reich, Salon
“Bunk!,” you say.
We don’t buy Reich’s claim because we know he’s a BS artist who’s fully in the bag for Obama.
Then put yourself in a Soledad O’Brien fan’s shoes and anticipate the reaction to this:
“President Obama holds deeply felt racially divisive opinions that are far outside the mainstream. We know this because he praised and hugged a Harvard Law professor on this video that another Harvard Law professor hid from view in 2008” – by Joel Pollak, Breitbart.com
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 1:17 pmkoam, please go antagonize somewhere else.
Painted Jaguar (A sockpuppet) (3d3f72) — 3/9/2012 @ 1:20 pmThe case is more substantial than that. This video doesn’t lay that out, but future ones probably will.
And at issue at this point is the media’s attempt to define the theory in a way that is untrue. That undermines their credibility when the future videos come out and they attempt to spin them.
This reminds me of ACORN saying the first O’Keefe video was an isolated incident.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 1:22 pmDoes Soledad O’Brien have fans?
MayBee (081489) — 3/9/2012 @ 1:24 pmAPPEAL TO THE MIDDLE!!!!!!!!
JD (d246fe) — 3/9/2012 @ 1:25 pmShrilledad should go back to kids programming.
JD (d246fe) — 3/9/2012 @ 1:27 pmIn fact, imagine if Breitbart.com had laid out their full case in their first video. A real bombshell.
Then what? Then folks would offer some criticism but deem it irrelevant. It would be ignored very quickly. Most folks wouldn’t hear about it more than a single time. There would be some weak spin, and that would be it. No loss of credibility for the MSM.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 1:28 pmHoping the new videos are zingers. But in a sense Joel showed up with a knife to a gunfight. Breitbart’s team can’t expect CNN viewers to just take Joel’s word for it. I’m sure 99.9% had never seen him before. If Alan Dershowitz had shown up to discuss academic & legal theory, that would be a different story.
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 1:28 pmIt’s underwhelming.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 1:29 pmHoping the new videos are zingers. But in a sense Joel showed up with a knife to a gunfight.
Abject BS
JD (d246fe) — 3/9/2012 @ 1:32 pmWhat is this post doing that will successfully be persuasive to those in the middle?
I hope Patterico got permission from KOAM to post it. =/
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/9/2012 @ 1:33 pm“Yes, it’s a terrible, odious, and inherently racist doctrine.”
Actually, it’s just a pastiche of silly nonsense put together by Bell to explain why he was forced out of three universities by his fellow lefties.
Of course, it was actually because he was so utterly incompetent, that even liberals noticed it, to the point that they wanted him fired…and, that’s almost impossible to achieve.
But, it sounds a lot more impressive if you attribute Bell’s utter failure to make it in the world of academia to systematic white racism; and, of course, there’s plenty of people in this world who are dumb enough to buy into that hogwash…our current Idiot-in-Chief being a prime example.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/9/2012 @ 1:33 pmAnd if this ever gets any traction, Obama’s gonna say that academic theories are meant to be discussed in academia….at Harvard and University of Chicago. Such theories are tools for classroom discussion and to challenge the thinking and to develop the minds of students. He was engaged in the topics taught at leading law schools and he doesn’t see what the big deal is. He’ll argue that his behavior since leaving academia doesn’t demonstrate that he holds fast to these theories. And that it’s just silly. And he’ll smile, and it’ll be on to the next thing.
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 1:35 pmFrankly, I thought Joel kicked ass at that interview. He was certainly out manned, and I can see him being out gunned if his opponent had been informed and honest, but they went off the rails, attacked an accurate statement, got into his race, and he handled it quite well.
Obama weaseled his way out of being pals with Bill Ayers of all people, so I don’t put much past him as to what he can handle. But I’m glad someone is trying. I’m not going to be disappointed in those who stand up and do this unless I can actually figure out a way to do it better.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 1:41 pm“Does Soledad O’Brien have fans?”
Sure, she does. She wins awards from racist organizations, like the NAACP, about once a week.
They love her in Leftyland. And, what’s not to love?
She’s got black ancestors, ancestors who spoke Spanish, she propagandizes in defense of wee lil’ Barry, and she even makes false accusations against Sarah Palin, while masquerading as a journalist! She’s fully qualified to be elevated to lefty demi-God status.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/9/2012 @ 1:42 pmJoel did very well given what he was confronted with. I agree, Dustin.
But it was a lack of preparation for an unknown spokesperson from Breitbart, a source viewed with skepticism to start with by the Soledad crowd, to come in and argue about obscure academic theory and try to pin that on Obama. They needed a better video package to release in the first place.
I’m hoping you’re right that this was a ploy to have the MSM declare it a non-event and then come back with something more concrete – directly from the mouth of Obama …not simply a lesson on Bell’s wacky theories, after the fact.
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 1:49 pmOne thing lingers. Andrew positioned this as “silver ponytails.” Do you think he thought of Bell as a silver ponytail?
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 1:54 pmDoesn’t matter, I think Joel read comment 107 and decided to shelve the whole matter altogether.
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/9/2012 @ 1:59 pmAce has more
—
I think they started this whole deal now, instead of in October, because they have a lot of ground to cover. By November we might see Breitbart.com in a completely different light.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 2:06 pmhe does not mean skin color, he means those who are really black, not those who think white and look black.
This was shown in the movie Space Traders as well with the light skinned wife being left behind.
Stranahan has a good interview with Heather Mac Donald here on critical race theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoUDNK-kZvo
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/9/2012 @ 2:13 pmYou know what would be a bombshell would be Mitt Romney championing someone who threatened a strike until Brigham Young hired someone who was “really” white. Not someone who thought black but had white skin, but “really” white.
CNN would not question whether such a story was important.
Of course, there is no such story. Even the GOP candidates I don’t like are vastly less weird than Obama. It’s hard to find any old pals of Obama who aren’t extremely screwed up.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 2:17 pmI saw the clip of the show. It’s not so bad – for an opinion show like Hannity or O’Reilly. Joel Pollak got in his points, except the ones he didn’t know hwo to make. They treated him fairly well. The really noticeable thing here, though is that Soledad O’Brien totally broke character. The problem was that this argument was taking place on this type of show. She started speakling on her own authority disagreeing with him about Derrick Bell, and what critical race theory was. But people can judge who got the better of the argument.
She used a kind of a phrase about what critical race theory was, which is just jargon. You can’t make any sense out of it. Joel Pollack said the critical race theory was the proposition that the Civil Rights movement was failure.
At first, at the beginning of the interview, it was only her being lively and attempting to force Joel Pollak to explain what exactly is interesting about the video. This is actually a good thing. It’s not obvious.
Joel Pollack tried to say how controversial a figure Derrick Bell was and he did manage to say something interesting: Derrick Bell had given a speech in Chicago two months before.
One idea I got out of it is that a lot of people appearently do not know what the actual content of his ideas are. One person said professors talking to each other. Maybe. It could be it is so abstract, convulted and repeatedly wrong on the facts that nobody can follow it!! And they don’t try.
One person claimed that Pollack was “smearing” Derrick bell, and then using ti to get at Barack Obama. Pollack said that there was bias in teh justice Department and they either missed it or did not understand that the accusation was taht black violators of civil rights laws were not being pursued.
When that happened Pollack should have repeated it and explained a bit – given an example.
Soledad did get embarassed at one point when they were claiming that the audience for Ogletree was white. All white, at this DuBois location? said Pollack.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/9/2012 @ 2:17 pmTotally disagree. They got way out of line.
BTW, it’s spelled Pollak, sans C. I was making the same error.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 2:21 pmAt one point Joel Pollack says what he says critical race theory is and Soledad O’Brien says, yes, that’s exactly right and uses her own wording (which is meant to be favorable)
Sammy Finkelman (63b67e) — 3/9/2012 @ 2:36 pmWeird. Irony. Don’t know what to call it. My handle is from a project I worked with Jay Thomas in the 90’s.
Birdbath (c3e273) — 3/9/2012 @ 2:50 pmkoam:
Your comments suggest to me that, because Breitbart’s video(s) and information won’t convince your liberal friends, you’ve decided they are not only a waste of time but might even be counter-productive. However, I don’t understand why you think your liberal friends are representative of all or most potential voters who make the difference in this election.
IMO the closer the election gets — and the more consumer prices increase while unemployment stays over 8% — the more voters will start paying attention to information about the candidates. Some voters won’t be interested in this; Some voters will. What if you’re wrong about whether this appeals to independent voters, and why do you think the downside is so bad that it justifies avoiding the topic altogether?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/9/2012 @ 2:57 pmFYI-Jay Thomas is the dick who wondered about Pollack’s fear of Black people.
Birdbath (c3e273) — 3/9/2012 @ 3:01 pmOh, I wondered what you were talking about, birdbath. I’ll remember that name. And yeah, he was way out of line. Joel did a great job keeping his cool.
Even if I knew nothing about any of these issues or people, watching this would convince me CNN’s gang were desperate.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 3:10 pmAlso, from a cynical view: the more time they spend covering for Obama, the less they can spend talking about Romney. I’ve already seen a number of too-cute-by-half attacks on polygamists and weird Mormons. We are in for a very ugly general election. If someone has honest ammo to use, they should go ahead and use it. At the very least, that’s time the MSM will be off message about what a horrible weirdo the GOP nominee is.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/9/2012 @ 3:14 pmThe fact that Joel was invited to appear on CNN is a victory. This is not a story CNN wants to discuss. That is the genius of Breitbart. He forces the MSM to cover stories they do not want to cover.
This story takes Obama off message and puts him on the defensive. Instead of discussing the Republican’s war on women, he must answer why he was palling around with a professor who hated white people. Is he going to use his Rev. White defense i.e. he never realized Prof. Bell hated white people. Eventually; through repetition, it is going to sink in, to the average American, that Obama is a radical.
Cabrillo (2e06cc) — 3/9/2012 @ 3:16 pmI agree with Cabrillo.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/9/2012 @ 3:28 pm==Actually, it’s just a pastiche of silly nonsense==
You get a special gold star today for using “pastiche” in a sentence, Mr. Surls. It’s a great, underused word.
elissa (b47460) — 3/9/2012 @ 3:33 pmI said to markos on twitter, when the twit tweeted that this was about obama associating with a black man, that “the proof that you are scared is the fact you can’t be honest about it.” or something close to that.
if it was really no big deal, they would be honest about it. The fact they are lying tells you we are on to something…
Btw, click on my name to see my analysis of one of Bell’s most famous works.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 3/9/2012 @ 3:59 pmDustin, my friend, the fact that Obama included critical legal studies materials — whether from Bell or others (and he was not the only one driving that ugly bandwagon) — as part of his seminar students’ reading lists does not prove that Obama “supported” critical race studies, or any particular part of it, much less its most extreme elements and outrageous statements.
Many, many, many more lefty academics, and even some from the center and the right, have assigned reading materials written by controversial and topical writers — including on critical legal studies — than actually “support” or propound or advocate those views. I took federal civil procedure from a self-avowed Marxist, Mark Tushnet, and I helped in the editing process for some of his law review publications. And I guarantee you that you could not accurately predict his own views just from the materials he assigned to his students, nor even from his class-room lectures.
And the undergrad professor who assigned Mao’s “Little Red Book” was one of the very few identifiably conservative professors I had at UT-Austin. That same book is taught at West Point — does that make the U.S. Army officers at West Point into communists? By your logic, it “proves” they are!
You’re over-claiming. You’re stretching. I understand the impulse, and I fall prey to it myself — fortunately more often in my political arguments than in my professional representation of clients. But I’m afraid lots of people are over-claiming. And it diminishes the credibility of voices on the right when they overclaim.
And the target audience — the voters whose votes we need to switch — are by and large the self-same people who failed to be persuaded in 2007-2008 by incontrovertible, non-subjective evidence that, for example, convicted politician-buyer Tony Rezko provided the essential financing and connections for the Obamas’ purchase of their home; or that Obama’s pastor, Rev. Wright, prayed to God to damn America; or that Obama’s fund-raising kickoff campaign was hosted at the Ayers house.
It affirmatively hurts our cause to exaggerate the significance of this stuff. It gives potential voters who might otherwise be inclined to take our positions seriously an excuse to tune out.
I respectfully submit that Obama opponents would be better served to let the evidence, such as it is, speak for itself, without overpromising or spin — especially when it’s as thin as this (so far) is. If it builds to a crescendo between now and November based on its own merit, that would be peachy. But if it depends on hype of the sort that’s going on now with these first “revelations” — on overpromising and distortion (e.g., the “Ogletree admits they hid this video” sort of distortion), then this isn’t helping, it’s hurting.
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/9/2012 @ 4:13 pm“He’ll argue that his behavior since leaving academia doesn’t demonstrate that he holds fast to these theories.”
koam – That might be a good gambit on Obama’s part, but there are the slight problems of him calling Rev. Wright his moral compass and the overlap of Rev. Hatey’s views with those of Prof. Bell’s, as well as some of the grants made from the Annenberg Challenge under Obama’s supervision which could be characterized as supportive of critical race theory.
The dots connect very nicely, but Obama could always go for the spin.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/9/2012 @ 4:18 pmCabrillo wrote (#125 — 3/9/2012 @ 3:16 pm):
I disagree. At best it becomes part of the give-and-take from Obama surrogates, just like the Ayers, Wright, and Rezko controversies have been. And contrary to your assertion, no one has ever been able to make Obama respond in any depth — in fact, in anything more than derisive, mocking dismissal, if that, and then only very, very rarely — about Ayers, Wright, and Rezko.
Folks, it can’t bear repeating often enough: Team Obama welcomes this kind of stuff. They’ve survived worse before, and this helps them take the focus off the economy, the national debt, and the perilous world situation. It’s a briar patch they’re damned happy to be thrown into. Why are we cooperating with them, with so little prospect of gain for ourselves?
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/9/2012 @ 4:18 pmFrom Cabrillo’s same comment: “Eventually; through repetition, it is going to sink in, to the average American, that Obama is a radical.”
If someone can’t figure that out from what Obama’s done in office for the last three years, they’re not capable of being persuaded of it by anything he did or said before 2004.
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/9/2012 @ 4:21 pmHere is a link to Prof. Ogletree’s remarks at Harvard about hiding the video in 2008. They come about halfway through.
I did not know Obama thought he was turning down a possible Supreme Court Clerkship by virtue of serving as an undistinguished President of the Harvard Law Review to become a community organizer in Chicago.
The sacrifices he has made to serve America continue to amaze me.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/9/2012 @ 4:23 pmBeldar, my thoughts exactly.
To your point, the professor of the only political science course I took in college, “Law & Justice in America,” was none other than Howard Zinn.
http://www.howardzinn.org/zinn/bio
I liked him. Everyone liked him. (He wasn’t a dick like Chef Ayers appears to be.) I learned a lot. I didn’t agree with much of what he taught, but it was worth learning about. It doesn’t make me a Marxist or an Alinskyite activist, but I learned how to start out as a community organizer and create a grassroots street campaign for a cause.
I’d still like to see Obama’s transcripts, not his grades, just the courses he took in undergrad and law school. And also see what his independent studies and major term papers focused on.
I agree with Beldar’s comments overall and was thinking the same…that if the incendiary Rev Wright, Rezko, & Ayers stories didn’t work in defining a largely unknown freshman senator 4 years ago, the Bell story isn’t likely to persuade voters about the sitting president.
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 4:31 pmOne is reminded, how long did it take for the notion that Weiner was a irresponsible jerk to settle in, there were enough squirrels there for
narciso (87e966) — 3/9/2012 @ 4:34 pma whole raft of Alvin and Theodore sequels,
Well, I guess the science is settled then, huh?
elissa (b47460) — 3/9/2012 @ 4:34 pmOgletree admitted they hid the video. So it is not “distortion” to point that out.
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/9/2012 @ 4:51 pmAssumes facts not in evidence. For many people those stories surely did help define him.
But there is more that never came out. And it is coming out now.
I guess some don’t like that. But it seems all good to me.
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/9/2012 @ 4:55 pmIs there more to the Ogletree claim than what we saw on the video clip?
It seemed to be just him cracking wise to a like-minded crowd.
When my friend or former student is running for president, I’m not likely to bring up all the stories, photos, or videos I recall that might work against his candidacy. But I’m not a reporter, and neither is Prof. Ogletree.
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 4:57 pmTrue, Ogletree has provided interesting rhetorical cover for Obama since, in one instance, insisting
narciso (87e966) — 3/9/2012 @ 5:02 pmcalling him ‘Professor’ was somehow racist.
DRJ, my friend, you mentioned in a comment the other day that you thought this video represented progress, even if it might not be a “touchdown.”
I’m pretty sure that you’ve been, or are, or you’ve been around, a bunch of Dallas Cowboy fans. Do you dimly remember the long-simmering, multi-season QB controversy between Craig Morton and Roger Staubach — and then Clint Longley? He may have been before your time, but long story (kinda) short:
After backup Longley led the Cowboys to an improbable come-from-behind 24-23 victory over the Redskins on Thanksgiving Day of 1974, for about two or three weeks there were large, enthusiastic numbers of Cowboy fans who were convinced that we’d found our new Don Meredith, the QB who would let us avenge those tough losses to Green Bay, the big hoss with a cannon for an arm, to whom the Cowboys could hitch all their Super Bowl hopes and dreams. Indeed, I was one such.
And we were drunk on our own fumes. We were not looking dispassionately at the strengths and weaknesses of our own team. We weren’t choosing rationally or wisely among alternatives. And the fact was that it was no accident that Clint Longley had been on the bench — the accident was that he ever had a one-game-wondrous performance. Either Morton or Staubach was a vastly better QB. Longley’s teammates knew the performance was a fluke, not something they could rely upon as an indicator. One of them called the victory “a triumph for the uncluttered mind.” And Tom Landry (my all-time sports hero) knew better, fortunately for us all.
I know right now a lot of people who are still stung by Breitbart’s tragic and unexpected death are hungry to see his plans reach out to trip up Obama’s bid to return to the White House. I’m among them, too.
But we need to emulate calm, methodical Tom Landry. We need to avoid getting drunk on our own fumes. And I think there’s some of that going on right now. The final whistle hasn’t even blown on this particular play, but I’m not sure it won’t end up being a fumble for lost yardage. I’m sure not ready yet to attach much hope to this section of the playbook when it comes to the whole season.
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/9/2012 @ 5:03 pmI don’t dislike it.
I just don’t think that more stories about Obama’s past that are more of the same are going to be more persuasive now than the wild stories were in 2008. They’re more likely to make us who don’t like Obama and distrust his background seem to be obsessed with his racial views, rather than his policies and skills as president. I think it’s just a little late for that now that he’s in office and that there are probably more productive lines of inquiry.
You need only watch Chris Matthews for a week before he says something like “I just don’t understand how anyone cannot think that this is the brightest, most talented president of our lifetimes….and anyone who doesn’t think that must have a problem with his race.” Matthews says that ridiculous shit all the time…even when the topic is not race. Ed Schultz says the same.
So when the Right keeps coming back with criticisms of the president that are related to his views on race (even if they are 100% correct), it fits the firm belief that is preached far and wide that race is why most people who don’t like him feel that way.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 5:05 pm“that if the incendiary Rev Wright, Rezko, & Ayers stories didn’t work in defining a largely unknown freshman senator 4 years ago, the Bell story isn’t likely to persuade voters about the sitting president.”
koam – Alternatively, if the guardians of the media prevented the Wright, Rezko, & Ayers stories from gaining traction four years ago by falsely assuring people there was no there, there, unless the media veil gets pierced, how are people to know there is a story to be questioned.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/9/2012 @ 5:08 pmWhat’s interesting in a disturbing way, Beldar is that false narratives about events that never happened, seem to be ‘more real’ than the actual experiences people seem to going through,
narciso (87e966) — 3/9/2012 @ 5:12 pmdaleyrocks, fair enough as a long-term goal of exposing the media bias. Still, see my prior comment at 5:05.
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 5:17 pmPainted Jaguar:
I am not sure who is getting most irritated about this thread, and who is getting the most chuckles.
Beldar, you have made your position clear that you think discussing anything Obama pre-2008 is a waste of time and we need to focus on his record in office. Is that a fair summary?
koam sticks his/her/its nose in as if he/she/it is the superior intellect on public relations and mass media and is coming to all of us poor pitiful little Obama opponents that the almighty Breitbart and his untested and inexperienced fill-ins are wasting their time and fumbling the tactics.
It would be nice to know who has a perfect method to expose lies and force people to see truth, but I don’t think it exists.
Nobody needed to tell conservatives that the video shown was no a “game changer” in and of itself. I would suggest somebody was relieved this came out and took the opportunity to try to dis Breitbart and looked like fools for anyone not on their team. As discussed, discussed, and discussed, and discussed already, we will see what Breitbart’s crew will do next.
Perhaps Breitbart and co. did not plan on releasing this yet, or planned on releasing it with something else, who knows? All we know is that part was preemptively shown elsewhere, then Breitbart did their bigger clip.
Eric Holder said he wanted to have a discussion about race. Let’s have it:
Everybody who thinks America is inherently racist and will always be racist, that a non-white will never get a fair chance, that quotas and affirmative action will always be necessary to even the playing field, and that reparations for slavery will be paid one way or another if Obama, holder, Bell, and their ilk have their way,
stand over here.
All those who still are trying to reach Dr. King’s mountaintop where people are judged by their character and not by the color of their skin
stand over there.
To those who think it doesn’t make a difference, I have nothing to say.
Yes, the arguments why Obama should not be elected a second time need to be clear and concise. The media will always cover, those who like to believe the lies will and we don’t need to worry about convincing them. Instead of bickering about what arguments are to be made, how about putting forth good arguments and letting the best rise to the top. Don’t repeat the mistake of the Repub primaries and make it about fighting amongst one another, focus on Obama and let the most effective arguments declare themselves.
I’m headed south.
Painted Jaguar (a sockpuppet) (3d3f72) — 3/9/2012 @ 5:40 pmOur gracious host wrote (#138 — 3/9/2012 @ 4:55 pm): “For many people those stories [revealing Obama’s dealings with Wright, Rezko, and Ayers] surely did help define him.”
No one disputes that. Those revelations surely buttressed many doubters, worried many worriers, and probably even persuaded some waiverers at the margins. They were a non-trivial part of the right’s — especially right-leaning alternative media’s — collective attempt to remedy the lack of serious vetting of Obama by the mainstream media. My working premise is that almost everyone who was persuaded by the Ayers-Wright-Rezko stuff, in whole or in part, to vote against Obama in 2008 will do so again in 2012.
The point, rather, is that given all that predicate, the people who we now need to persuade — the ones we need win over, lest 2008’s result be repeated — are the very ones who have already proved themselves unpersuadable by objectively stronger evidence about Obama’s historical associations with an actual felon, a should-be-(by his own admission)-felon, and the most revolting preacher in the United States. What’s out so far — again, I hope there’s more and better yet to come! — with respect to Bell and critical race studies is older and more ambiguous, and it depends mostly on inferences and assumptions. By contrast, a great many of the key facts about Rezko, Ayers, and Wright have been admitted or proved (in Rezko’s case, literally proved beyond a reasonable doubt). So the reason to think this same general guilt-by-association strategy going to work on those essential voters this time, when it did not before, is … what?
If the “more is yet to come” is mostly or all about Bell, rather than specific and reliably imputable to Obama personally, then that is very disappointing and very weak. Bell was far from the only kook or quack or radical on the Harvard Law School faculty when Obama was there. But most of them were also there when the most likely GOP nominee took his own J.D. degree there (along with a jointly awarded Harvard MBA). So are we going to try to make this election about the Harvard faculty? Seriously?
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/9/2012 @ 5:55 pmPainted Jaguar (a sockpuppet) (#145 — 3/9/2012 @ 5:40 pm) asked of me:
No, that’s not quite right. If there is something from before 2008 which is revealed now that is genuinely new and important — perhaps something that is either different in kind from what was already argued in 2007-2008, or even just much more compelling than what was known then; something that goes to Obama’s character in a compelling way; and something that is a matter of objective, verified fact rather than of spin and argument and conjecture and inference — then by all means, it ought to be brought up and argued now.
Find a video now of Obama in, say, 2003, saying himself the same outrageous things that Bell has said and written, that would be a big deal. That would be like finding the longed-for video of Obama saying “Amen!” from the front row of Wright’s church as he prayed to God to damn America.
This ain’t that. If that’s what’s scheduled for October, I’ll be ecstatic. But I’ll also be very, very surprised.
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/9/2012 @ 6:04 pmI wish I knew people who changed their minds about Obama because of the Rev. Wright tapes.
I recall two reactions to Dr. Jeremiah.
The first: “that horrible man is trying to harm our Obama.”
and the other, “he’s goddamn right.”
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 6:06 pmBeldar, exactly.
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 6:07 pmI get that some people were underwhelmed (I was at first as well) but Breitbart is one website. A very reliable one. The whole election does not ride on them.
It seems like a lot of people have a problem with their editors. I am not being snarky here, maybe those who are should get an account over there and tell your concerns to people who could actually do something about them.
Davis Guggenheim (3681c4) — 3/9/2012 @ 6:07 pmWhich of the 50 Derrick Bell stories published int he past 2 days would we comment on?
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 6:15 pmI think they did a decent job, for a first round, I’m sure they have more, mind you this is a media
narciso (87e966) — 3/9/2012 @ 6:16 pmthat insists that ‘Fast and Furious’ doesn’t exist
I don’t know anyone connected with the Breitbart sites, Mr. Guggenheim, and to my dismay I never met Andrew Breitbart and will now never have that chance. If I play the Kevin Bacon game, our host, Patterico, constitutes my closest hypothetical path. And if I manage somehow to make a point here which our host thought worth passing along to them, it would come to them with his preexisting credibility, and his history of successful collaborations and communications. I do intend my criticism or even just my reservations to be constructive and good-natured, which my fervor may sometimes conceal.
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/9/2012 @ 6:17 pmSock off
Yeah KOAM, it would be a major chore to pick which thread to enter but I think you could handle it.
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/9/2012 @ 6:19 pmand may the odds be ever in your favor
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/9/2012 @ 6:20 pm“daleyrocks, fair enough as a long-term goal of exposing the media bias. Still, see my prior comment at 5:05.”
koam – As I pointed out above, we can both make assumptions about who is persuadable based on what pieces of evidence all day long with no way proving each other right or wrong.
I think it’s obvious, however, if no information gets past the media guardians there is no opportunity to change anybody’s mind.
In 2008, I remember discussions about Obama and his potential affirmative action linked appointment as head of the Harvard Law Review, but nothing about his relationship to Derrick Bell and Critical Race Theory. To me, this is all new, while it may not be to others.
As I pointed out above, we can both make assumptions about who is persuadable based on what pieces of evidence all day long with no way proving each other right or wrong.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/9/2012 @ 6:22 pmdaleyrocks, yep, i agree.
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 6:26 pmThis video was just on Hannity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5ISKQD7ytSk
I think it did a great job of showcasing President Obama’s self-serving hypocrisy on a current topic.
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 6:28 pmIt’s out there, of course David Graham among others is already running interference with the Chewbacca
narciso (87e966) — 3/9/2012 @ 6:29 pmdefense, arguing he was vetted in 2008, by a book written in 2010 by an author, David Remnick, so
cloyingly in Obama’s corner, that Goebbels might have complained.
Stranahan made some good, simple, honest points on Twitter.
The media is not O’s cheerleaders, they are his players.
And, would a story about Mitt Romney introducing and hugging David Duke be relevant?
(close to those)
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/9/2012 @ 6:31 pmThe media literally looked under rocks to paint Rick Perry as a racist.
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/9/2012 @ 6:35 pmIf people haven’t figured out what Obama is all about by now, I don’t think they are inclined to figure it out. As Beldar does, I hope for something rather more than what was already sort of taken for granted as “out there” and kept quiet.
The “we hid this” part is useful in that it lays ground for people to wonder how much was really hidden. Still, it’s his failures in office that have to matter more.
And those people have to have a place to go. The nominee can’t be too repulsive or they will just continue in denial.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/9/2012 @ 6:35 pmThere are so many ‘look squirrels’ that they keep pointing out;
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2012/03/waldman-at-the-american-prospect-shouldnt-misrepresent-my-work.html
narciso (87e966) — 3/9/2012 @ 6:37 pmPatterico wrote (# 137 — 3/9/2012 @ 4:51 pm):
If Ogletree was making an admission instead of a joke, you’re correct. If it was an admission instead of a joke, why did he make it while laughing, in public, on video, while Obama still is at risk of losing reelection? The context persuades me that it was a joke. Your mileage may vary, and I freely concede this is a matter of opinion.
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/9/2012 @ 6:39 pmIdk how anyone can say that video of Michelle Obama occupying the Dean’s office is not important (though not Breitbarts it came out with it).
It is important as a pure historical piece if nothing else. She is an occupier which proves she is part of the 99 percent. lol
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/9/2012 @ 6:42 pmBeldar, yep
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 6:44 pmIs there anything not insane, these people say, and why is it almost impossible to find it;
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2012/03/cass-sunstein-derrick-bell-wanted-to-end-americas-white-supremacy.html
narciso (87e966) — 3/9/2012 @ 6:53 pmBeldar:
You’ve escalated your rhetoric. I was probably the main commenter in an earlier thread asserting Ogletree’s comment proves there were efforts to hide Obama’s past, a comment with which you disagreed. You thought Ogletree was joking. I acknowledged you might be right but explained why I disagreed. Obviously my response wasn’t convincing but I’m surprised to see you condemn another opinion as a distortion, especially in light of Ogletree’s actual words:
You’re my superior in scholarship but it doesn’t take a scholar to know whether someone is sincere or joking. You think Ogletree was joking and I think he was sincere. Reasonable people can disagree without either side distorting facts, but I’m not the only one that thinks Ogletree meant what he said. The editors of Investors Business Daily also think Ogletree was serious.
You realize, don’t you, that Ogletree’s statement was made over a year ago at a W.E.B. Dubois Institute symposium entitled “From Barry to Barack” on February 15, 2011? (The pertinent segment is about 3/8ths to 1/2 of the way through.) His statement wasn’t made in response to Breitbart or current news. It was made to a group that I suspect is largely liberal and supportive of Obama and, while I don’t know what motivated Ogletree’s statement, I stand by my earlier comment as to what he might have thought:
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/9/2012 @ 7:10 pmAn example of how this affects policy;
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/09/critical-race-theory-and-a-nation-of-coward
narciso (87e966) — 3/9/2012 @ 7:12 pmA-freakin-men, DRJ.
JD (318f81) — 3/9/2012 @ 7:17 pmI agree it doesn’t take a scholar to know whether someone is sincere or joking. I agree others have taken Ogletree’s words at face value, but it’s typically been done without revealing, much less discussing, the context or the possibility that this was a punch line.
I don’t understand why you think the fact that this was a public seminar in 2011 makes it more likely, rather than less likely, that Ogletree was joking instead of confessing. This wasn’t an off-the-cuff “admission” like the very genuine one Obama made, among a closed group of donors and supporters, about the bitter clingers. I entirely share your disgust at the Left’s brazenness. But if this was a sincere admission about a matter of substance, and if he’d been part of a deliberate and successful conspiracy to suppress it in 2008 so as to protect Obama’s election chances, why would he have let his whimsy suddenly override his caution in 2011, when Obama still is vulnerable?
My disagreement is respectful, but yes, we obviously disagree on this matter of opinion.
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/9/2012 @ 7:22 pmDRJ – I think Ogletree was serious and laughing because he was probably thinking about all the other sh*t they hid and got away with during the campaign that still hasn’t come out.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/9/2012 @ 7:22 pmApologies for that awful sentence. I meant: I think this having been a public seminar in 2011 makes it more likely that Bell was joking rather than making a confession, precisely because it was public, and precisely because this wasn’t yet any kind of active controversy.
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/9/2012 @ 7:25 pmI.e., people are less likely to confess in public. And people are more likely to joke, or use loose language, or boast or exaggerate, about something that isn’t yet a hot topic of national contention.
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/9/2012 @ 7:27 pmWho else was in the conspiracy? If there was one, if it included someone other than Ogletree, who was in it? The TV station that made the video? How did Ogletree and his hypothetical (or “self-confessed”) co-conspirators, his “we,” have any actual control over them? How did the conspiracy succeed, given the parts that were in the public domain (e.g., Kantor’s characterization, the Frontline edited version)?
Aren’t those claiming that Ogletree made a confession simply ignoring all those questions? “We don’t need a conspiracy that could have worked, we have a confession!”
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/9/2012 @ 7:31 pmPainted Jaguar:
Mr. Beldar, sir, thank you for your reasoned response. I would just like to say I think we need to visit the argument clinic. I have not seen anybody that I pay attention to, including Mr. Pollak, claim that this video was a “bombshell”. The only only one who has claimed that has been Ms. O’Brien, who I think was bettered by Pollak. She showed up thinking she was going to humiliate a second-string stand-in and got surprised. She would like to think this was the “bombshell” and that nothing else is coming. I think koam is betting on this too, in spite of appearing to be concerned that “we” are successful in helping people see the truth concerning Mr. Obama.
Certainly it was the case with the ACORN expose’ that info came out little by little, letting the MSM make fools of themselves making claims that were shown to be false the next day. Yes, most of us (not koam or Soledad), hope this to be true.
In the meantime, let us please not condemn one another for what we think are false starts. If we are consumed with that, nothing gets done.
Goebbels’ only complaints are out of jealousy.
Soledad: “Is this the bombshell?”
Someone: “No, the bombshell is the tape of Obama celebrating a person with terrorist affiliation in NYC that the LA Times has but will not release.” (That would be a nice live TV response with the appropriate details that I do not have)
Hey, what happens to the tapes if the LA Times goes into receivership???
I shall not return, carry on. Our gracious host, DRJ, and Stash know where to look me up if necessary.
Painted Jaguar (a sockpuppet) (3d3f72) — 3/9/2012 @ 7:32 pmConsidering the venue, he thought much like Obama did in San Francisco, they were not going to speak of ‘Fight Club’
http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/tocn-mla000738-derrick-bell-teaches-a-civil-rights-course
narciso (87e966) — 3/9/2012 @ 7:32 pmSorry, last jumbled thought on this topic:
DRJ, if you acknowledge that my opinion “might be right,” then mustn’t you also agree that unless that competing opinion is at least acknowledged (as you’ve done, but others haven’t yet), the assertion that Ogletree made an “admission” is materially misleading by omission?
Assume our host is about to make opening statements in a case in which the prosecution depends, at least in part, on the defendant’s alleged confession. But the prosecutor knows that the circumstances of the confession are going to be hotly disputed by multiple witnesses. Is it smart for him to talk about the confession in opening statement, and then let the defense counsel get up and accuse him of telling only half the story (because “the rest of the evidence will show” yada yada [all the reasons why we should doubt the confession])? The ethical and smart prosecutor is going to use his positional advantage — going first — to fairly disclose the controversy, and then to immediately begin spinning it to his best advantage as an advocate for the State.
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/9/2012 @ 7:46 pmnarciso, they put it on the internet. Are the Dems really so stupid that they think the way to perpetuate a conspiracy of concealment is to confess it at a public seminar that’s going to be posted on the internet?
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/9/2012 @ 7:47 pmJaguar, I’m not condemning, I’m trying to give constructive criticism. If I were condemning I would certainly do that on my own blog, rather than presuming on our host’s.
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/9/2012 @ 7:49 pmBeldar:
I think you misunderstood my point. First, I based my opinion on what I saw. Rather than a joke, it sounded to me as if Ogletree enjoyed saying they hid the video, and that the audience was appreciative rather than laughing at a joke. But that’s just my impression and I know your impression was different.
Second, as I said earlier, I suspect the seminar was attended by primarily or perhaps exclusively liberal Obama supporters, and everyone probably knew it. There were 3 videos in the series from presentations on 3 successive nights. Other videos include references to support provided to Obama’s campaign, e.g., Ogletree talked about working on the 2008 campaign and convincing Henry “Skip” Gates, Jr., to support Obama. (After watching this, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn one of Ogletree’s tasks was to find and hide problems from Obama’s term at Harvard Law.)
This may well have been a public seminar but it struck me as an in-house discussion among like-minded people, but isn’t that possible since the W.E.B. Dubois Institute is at Harvard and Gates is the director? To analogize, I’ve seen speakers at local bar meetings and seminars say things a layman might find surprising. Is it really a stretch to think this may be a similar situation?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/9/2012 @ 7:49 pmBeldar:
No, because we aren’t talking about a legal admission. We’re talking about a practical admission.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/9/2012 @ 7:51 pmPainted Jaguar,
In full disclosure, I think Ogletree’s statement was a big deal. I’m not sure I would call it a bombshell but I think it was big.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/9/2012 @ 7:54 pmOgletree’s a professor and friend of Barack. He’s not the media, not a journalist with a responsibility to the public. What’s the rumpus?
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:02 pmWell there is that, however, his perspective is informative, unintentionally;
http://www.narbosa.com/2008/10/charles-ogletree-is-damn-fool.html
narciso (87e966) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:06 pmme i like to wait on these things til reinse preibus weighs in
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:25 pmWhat’s the rumpus? Ogletree has visited the White House 14 times, 9 with Obama, and Breitbart.com reports he was part of Obama’s inner circle and Black Advisory Council. The second link points out this isn’t the first time Ogletree has “joked” about “disappearing” Obama’s problems.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:28 pmSo? I expect the media to vet the prez, not his friends.
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:32 pmRather, I expect the media, not his friends, to vet the prez.
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:33 pmI’m down wif BAC yeah you know me
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:34 pmI expect Obama’s friends, associates, staff and supporters to hide things they think will hurt him. But that doesn’t mean I won’t notice and comment when they do it.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:35 pmkoam,
However, you’re right the point is the media should be doing this job. It doesn’t do its job, does it?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:37 pmAgree. I don’t think the claim of a friend hiding info (and I think he was just falsely bragging for the friendly crowd) is a bombshell, nor do I think the content of what he was supposedly hiding was a bombshell.
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:40 pmour job-raping president is an eager and willing fluke-like whore for anti-semites is the takeaway
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:55 pmwhat we’ve learned, together, as Americans, is that our president hates him some jews like I hate the nasty-assed spicy salt and pepper calamari from city wok, what is inexplicably served with rice and you don’t get any kind of sauce at all
disgusting.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/9/2012 @ 8:59 pmWhy hide this if it wasn’t worth hiding? I think they hid it because it supported that Obama associated with radicals.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:01 pmWell it does show that this attitude, is peppered all through the administration, from the Office of Regulatory Affairs to Justice, not to mention the FCC, remember Mark LLoyd, who wanted to ‘hold up’
narciso (87e966) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:04 pmtalk radio, to finance a more expansive public radio infrastructure,
It’s a lot like Stalin making former friends present nonpersons by clipping them from pictures, one at least just for looking taller than Stalin. No detail too small.
nk (dec503) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:05 pmthey hid it cause of jewish people DRJ, jewish people what are big donors to the obamawhore cause, jewish people what are beginning to realize that they’ve been supporting a rabid anti-semitic anti-semite in the person of one rape-tastic Barack Obama
with CNN it’s just like Reuters… it’s always about jews with these ones, and Soledad is a propaganda whore who is paid, and who knows she is paid, to keep up appearances for Israel-hating employers
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:05 pm*No detail too small, to a small mind.* Remember, that Obama is nothing more than a Daley sockpuppet. And the Daleys are small-minded control freaks scared of their own shadows.
nk (dec503) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:10 pmWe get it, koam. You don’t think this is a story. You have made it abundantly clear.
JD (318f81) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:10 pmwhat is the sound of one hand fwapping
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:12 pmanswer key: fwapfwapfwapfwapfwapfwapfwapfwap
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:12 pmNo I don’t think they were puppets of Daley .exactly, although they did take the swag when needs must, Jarrett for instance, was peeved when they kicked her from the Chief of Staff’s office,to
narciso (87e966) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:15 pmthe Transit Commission, yeah I don’t get it either.
Illinois’s “open primary” means, among other things, the ballot you asked for, Republican, Democrat, Sith, Jedi, etc., is a publicly accessible record. And The Machine does “publicly” access what party you declared should you apply for
nk (dec503) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:28 pma cityan Illinois job.Wonderful system, who came up with it, Al Capone, or more properly William ‘Bill’ Thompson,
narciso (87e966) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:36 pm“Eventually; through repetition, it is going to sink in, to the average American, that Obama is a radical.”
Even though it may sink in, one still can’t assume people will care. At this point in time, the average voter seems far more concerned with skyrocketing gas prices, a lack of jobs, and increasing taxation. So the president was/is a radical – how does that directly impact their personal life? That’s where the connection needs to be evidenced. And I don’t think it can be in a succinct and clear way. Or in a way that one would take the time to understand.
Why take the focus off the damaging things the president is doing to our country, because this is what we’re doing. Instead of the left providing the Fluke escapades of distraction, the right is providing this new one.
It’s not that the video’s contents aren’t important as they connect the dots for voters, but unfortunately the view is obscured by the sinking economy, debt, and skyrocketing gas prices.
Dana (4eca6e) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:36 pmBig Bill Thompson. And that’s the one thing the Daleys did right — threw the filthy gangster-fellator out.
If you look at Ryan and Blagojevic, you’ll see that Ryan the Republican is more Democrat than Blagojevic the Democrat. I wonder whether they all get together and toss coins to see who will be Frank and who will be Fannie.
nk (dec503) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:46 pmJust for the record I have run across a report at HotAir that the Wikipedia article was edited to match Soledad’s description shortly after this aired. The original description is closer to what Pollak gave. It’s in the update to the article that had the first and last videos above in it.
{^_-}
jbd (d55daf) — 3/9/2012 @ 9:58 pmDana,
I think this story matters because, ultimately, voters will want to know who can get us out of this financial mess we’re in. It’s important to show people why Obama won’t be able to get us out of this mess. I hope it will be enough to say “Look how bad things are 4 years after Obama was elected,” but I’m not sure it will be.
Obama will offer multiple reasons why his policies haven’t worked yet, and the media will support that he’s not to blame and everything is getting better. That’s why I think showing Obama believes in radicals and their radical solutions might help convince some voters that Obama doesn’t have the answers and never will.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:00 pmAnd yet, you labeled my quote from the post a “distortion.”
Then you go on to imply that I was deceptive in not acknowledging the possibility that Ogletree’s comment was a joke.
I am willing to wager a large sum of money that your opinion — and you have acknowledged it is an opinion — is based entirely on information that you were able to access from my post. In other words, I embedded the video and allowed the reader to view the comment and see the laughter and reach the conclusion that it was a joke.
So it pretty much seems to me like I hid nothing.
And it pretty much seems to me like I distorted nothing.
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:04 pmI’m used to having people accuse me falsely of “distortion” or other deceptive behavior. I am just sometimes surprised at the source of such criticism.
This is one of those times.
But you know what? I just call it like I see it. If I am disappointed by what appears to me to be unfair criticism, well, it’s not the first time I have ever experienced it, and I’m sure it won’t be the last.
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:07 pmI tend to think it’s a big country and a long campaign, and talking about an issue like this in March on the Breitbart and Patterico blogs and others like them is unlikely to cost us the election — but is likely to give our allies ammunition that didn’t exist before. They can use it as they see fit. I don’t share the confidence so many here seem to share that a candidate’s radical past is utterly irrelevant. It may not be the most important factor in the campaign . . . but then, who said it was?
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:10 pmI’m sticking to my lowbrow opinion that everyone is sick of Obama and the election will be more about the political bases than winning the middle.
I also submit that Breitbart is one website (that you can visit or not based on your feelings of newsworthiness) and will not determine the election.
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:11 pmTo me, the main questions are:
1) Is the information true?
and
2) Does it reflect the president in a negative light?
The answer to #1 is self-evident. The answer to #2 is, I believe, dependent on your view of critical race theory. Since I happen to have a decidedly negative view of this “theory,” I think the answer to #2 is also self-evidently “yes.”
Let me quasi-reassure Beldar on one point. I no longer have Andrew Breitbart whispering in my ear — and when he was alive, he never told me a word about the videos. So, in terms of the videos (it was plural) in the “I’ve got videos” promise . . . I don’t know anything about the content of those videos.
I *do* have a pretty good idea that the very current controversy about the meaning of critical race theory will, in short order, be illuminated by a video of a rather prominent Obama-connected lefty. I can assure you that this video was not one of Andrew’s long-promised videos and was only recently discovered.
I will be surprised if that video does not emerge by Monday.
Andrew may not whisper in my ear any more, but I am promiscuous. I try to get as many people as possible to whisper in my ear.
Reassured some?
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:17 pmI have a pretty good guess at who it is. If I am right they also attended Rev. Wright’s church in the past.
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:27 pmWho would be high profile enough, Common the rapper, not Pfleger, he’s not a big enough player
narciso (87e966) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:31 pmon the big stage.
If it is who I think it is. Very high profile.
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:33 pmOprah?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:38 pmThat’s my guess. Pure speculation.
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:40 pmAnother protege of Bell, in the ‘belly of the beast’
http://activitypit.ning.com/forum/topics/fox-news-hires-soros-funded-activist
narciso (87e966) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:43 pmThe funny thing (well not really) is she left Trinity United Church of Christ because it was too radical for her and she thought she would get heat for it. For a President? No problem.
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/9/2012 @ 10:44 pmhttp://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/09/Dobbs-Mocks-CNNs-OBrians-Interview-Fail
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:22 pmPatterico, you’d win your bet; I did indeed form my opinion that Ogletree was probably joking from the circumstances and context I observed in the video that you posted. My opinion was also based, however, on a lot of preexisting knowledge — knowledge about Obama, about Harvard Law and Harvard Law Review, about Bell, about the 2004 campaign, etc.
The problem is that many people don’t watch videos; those of us who still don’t have really good high-speed internet, in fact, and who have to wait a while for even a low-rez video to download, regularly decide to skip some and watch others. Obviously, I deemed this interesting enough to make that modest investment of time before making any comment. But not everyone who reads your text will make that investment, and the average half-life of embedded videos on the internet is what, 12 hours? 36? Maybe a month if you’re lucky?
My criticism is that your written description treats the “admission” as an accomplished fact that is indisputable. Well, it’s indisputable that he said the words you quote. But what he meant by them is at least subject to two competing, and antithetical, interpretations, and your text only reported one. The inclusion of the video certainly mitigates the omission for those who choose to view it; but I don’t think it cures it, and I would not have chosen the words you did for the reasons I’ve described.
I’m not saying you intentionally distorted anything. I’m saying that those who reach the same opinion I did after watching the video could well conclude (as I did) that your textual description was accurate but still incomplete and therefore unfair, and that it therefore detracts from your credibility. By telling only one side in your own words, you leave yourself open to the impression that you’re engaging in the kind of overwrought right-leaning literalness that I believe Ogletree’s laughter was intended to mock.
As for this criticism coming from an unexpected source, that’s a fair point. But my belief is that it’s out of character for you to fail to acknowledge — and, if appropriate, anticipate and discuss — context-based objections like mine. You’re usually very sensitive to context and to the danger of content being misleading through omission; that’s a recurring and appropriate theme in your critiques of the Dog Trainer, for example. But this time you seem to me to be insensitive to this very important context, and it’s particularly problematic because it’s while accusing someone else of a deliberate cover-up (which I don’t think can be proved, but which at any rate certainly hasn’t been proved yet in any coherent or persuasive detail). And when you rely solely on the reader’s diligence to also watch the video and gather the additional context — when you ignore that context in your own text — then some of those readers are not going to credit your inclusion of the video as being good faith and complete, they’re going to focus on your silence in your own text and infer the worst.
If the Obama-connected leftie we’re to look for is Eric Holder or another member of Obama’s cabinet, that might become a big deal, depending also on how thoroughly he/she embraces the most controversial and (to me) offensive tenets of critical race theory. But if it’s some other academic like Bell, whose connections to Obama are through academia, that (IMHO) won’t be. Unless this critical race theory stuff is tied to Obama personally through someone like Holder — someone who’s views are more vividly and indisputably imputable to Obama than Wright’s, Ayers’, or Rezko’s — it won’t get any traction.
If my purpose was to generate publicity or pageviews for myself, I’d be arguing all this with much less restraint and much more snark on my own site instead of in your comments. But then I might be David Frum, and that’s not at all what or who I’m trying to be. I’m simply trying to be the guy who asks his teammates to join him in a reality check so that we can best achieve a common purpose. Toward that end, I’d suggest you add a third and fourth question to your drill, besides “Is it true?” and “Does it reflect badly on Obama?” Add: “Does it have a large potential to boom-a-rang on Obama’s opponents?” and “Is it distracting attention from more current and vastly more important issues in the campaign?”
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:25 pmWould an associate justice of the supreme court qualify as an Obama-connected lefty?
koam @wittier (3bf37e) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:32 pmI would think they would. If appointed by Obama.
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:37 pmDRJ: I think you underestimate how competent the Dems are at dirty tricks. Either you or I could come up with an incredible list of things the Obama Administration has been largely or entirely successful at hiding and stonewalling on. But your theory, in which Ogletree has to be a central and integral part of a successful conspiracy before the 2008 election, and then on a him confesses all while being videotaped at a public seminar (even among mostly lefties) that’s posted on the internet, suffers from the same internal conflict as the Dems who simultaneously believed Dubya to be an evil genius and an absolute dunce.
“Why hide this if it wasn’t worth hiding?” you ask. But that’s not my question. My question is, “If it was worth hiding in 2008, why isn’t it still worth hiding in 2012?” If I understand your position, it’s because Ogletree thought he was bullet-proof, and that he could disclose this, even laugh about this “admission,” because he could get away with it. Well, why wouldn’t he have thought he could get away with it before the 2008 election too?
As for your link with the “other example”: How was a Harvard professor like Ogletree in any position to “hide” anything said in church (and quite often on audio and/or videotape) by an obnoxious preacher in Chicago? That’s not another genuine admission, that’s another example of Ogletree speaking loosely while over-exaggerating his own power and influence.
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:40 pm“and then on a whim confesses” … sorry.
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:41 pmBeldar:
Probably the better practice would have been to give the precise minute and second this quote appears, so that anyone skeptical of my honestly held interpretation could evaluate it for themselves with a minimum of effort. If I had done that, I think you would agree no fair-minded person could say I had engaged in a “distortion.”
Hey, wait a second! I just looked at the post again, and as it turns out, that’s exactly what I did!
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:43 pmIn terms of linking Obama to critical race studies, it would be much more persuasive if it were Kagan (who was not a cabinet officer but nevertheless one of the DoJ’s top officials), but not very impressive at all if it were the Wise Latina. And again, it would have to be something where the Obama associate is unambiguously adopting and endorsing the tenets of critical race theory, not just praising or introducing Bell (or someone else of his ilk).
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:45 pmI see. So even as you earnestly argue that the clip means nothing in 2012, because we already heard so many similar arguments in 2008, you simultaneously argue that Ogletree would have no possible reason to be OK with the clip POSSIBLY being released in 2012 if it was worth hiding in 2008.
Can you see an internal contradiction there??
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:46 pmPatterico, if your text, in addition to giving the minute and second the quote appears, also explained that there was important contextual material there which cast doubt upon the authenticity of the “admission,” that would be better, but still not up to what I perceive as your normal standards (and which I like to believe are my own standards in common with you). The minute and second by themselves give no hint that there’s anything inconsistent, or anything important in addition to, what you’ve quoted in your text.
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:48 pmWell, let’s hope it’s Kagan then!
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:50 pmWell, Beldar, I just interpret the clip differently than you. I do not concede a “distortion.”
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:51 pmI don’t understand what you think the internal contradiction is in what I wrote. Try me again, I’m just not following.
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:51 pmAnd let’s hope, if it’s Kagan, that it’s something more than the routine tolerance for radicals that can be found every minute of every day in the Harvard Law School faculty lounge. Let’s hope she climbs on board to say that the civil rights movement was just a spasm of meaningless white guilt and that the entire American judicial system is a bigoted farce designed to continue and complete the systematic oppression of minorities. If that’s the next video, I’ll be pleased and very impressed.
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:53 pmThe closest definition I see for distortion in the online dictionary? “A statement that twists fact; a misrepresentation.”
To me, he’s laughing at what he got away with, pure and simple. I can see a strained argument to the contrary, and I won’t utterly ridicule you for making this argument, however improbable I find it.
But I am perfectly satisfied with the notice I gave of what I consider to be an outlier of an interpretation.
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:54 pmMaybe the tape was important in 2008 — but folks, this is 2012! It’s not as important now!!
Also:
If Ogletree thought the tape was important in 2008 (important enough to hide), he obviously would think it important in 2012!
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/9/2012 @ 11:56 pmIf Ogletree thought the sound, and the video of the hug, from Obama’s 1992 introduction of Bell was worth conspiring to conceal before the 2008 election, why would he not have continued that conspiracy through the 2012 election? Why, instead, would he confess it in public and on video himself, on something posted to the internet with a provocative title like “From Barry to Barack”? Why would he suddenly let his arrogant desire to mock the Right overwhelm his prudent desire to continue concealing anything materially harmful to Obama?
Why would you expect Ogletree to conform his conspiratorial secrecy, in other words, to the materiality standards which I argue that we, as conservatives, ought to follow in picking and choosing our fights with Obama? He would not do that. He’d continue hiding everything he believes could materially hurt Obama’s chances, and he wouldn’t risk the possibility that this might somehow get more traction in 2012 even though worse associations (with Ayers/Wright/Rezko) didn’t prevent Obama’s election in 2008.
I don’t see any inconsistency. Am I still misunderstanding you?
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/10/2012 @ 12:03 amMy “outlier of an interpretation” is of course the same one that Ogletree himself is now urging. Predictably.
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/10/2012 @ 12:05 amThanks for not utterly ridiculing me, though. 🙂
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/10/2012 @ 12:05 amI bet the person who just said all this might say: “hey, given that Obama won in 2008, this stuff doesn’t matter in 2012. I suppose it might have been worth bringing up in 2008, but he’s president now. I doubt it will matter in the next election.”
Can we agree on that?
If so:
Maybe that’s how Ogletree felt!
See what I mean now?
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/10/2012 @ 12:09 amNo, because Ogletree isn’t a conservative plotting the best ways to beat Obama, and trying to refocus voters on even more compelling reasons to vote against Obama in 2012. He’s the opposite of that. He wouldn’t use the same lines of reasoning that I have.
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/10/2012 @ 12:13 amLook, if Bell were still alive, there’s a very good chance that Obama would eventually react to this by inviting him to the White House and hugging him again. He’s the same guy who’s been mocking the Right for years about this birther stuff; he’s glad to have the discussion be about this, which hasn’t yet hurt him very badly, and which he can easily shrug off with his typical skill of being all things to all people simultaneously. He’d much rather the country be arguing about Bell and critical race theory than about the deficit or the unemployment rate or the price of gasoline at the pump or Iran’s impending Bomb.
You say there’s lots of time until the election. That means Obama still needs lots of red herring issues to serve as distractions. Republicans are stealing your lady-parts! Racist Republicans are trying to smear Obama just because he was polite to a controversial faculty member at his law school! Bill Ayers practically admitted ghost-writing “Dreams From My Father”! Hey, look, a squirrel!
And off we chase, until there are no more days until the election.
Beldar (bdfdef) — 3/10/2012 @ 12:21 amYeah? Is that all that happened?
Sure that’s not a distortion?
C’mon, gimme a hug! Open your hearts and minds to the words of Beldar!
Hey, I want to be polite!
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/10/2012 @ 12:41 amWas Ayers fair game?
Was Wright fair game?
Is Bell fair game?
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/10/2012 @ 12:43 amKagan, well she seems to have been an unintended
narciso (87e966) — 3/10/2012 @ 5:42 amconsequence of the Bell departure, she has left wing bonafides, from her thesis, onward, I would
think Soto, even though she’s a new yorker, she
was playing the same type of angle, that Fluke would
practice, two decages later,
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV?id={4C9211B0-AEB4-4712-A5B9-A1709F793DDF}&title=Obama%20Mentor
To my viewing Ogletree’s quote, after the video of law student Obama introducing Professor Bell: “What makes this so interesting, when you think about it — of course we hid this throughout the 2008 campaign (chuckle), I don’t care if they find it now (big smile)– it just shows you that his growth has been just astronomical in his sense about race in a very complex world — trying to deal in a world (unclear) world of Harvard Law School, etcetera” doesn’t necessarily mean that Ogletree literally hid it, or even thought of that clip in 2008.
I think that what Ogletree is saying is (unspoken), “We, in this room, are all on the same page. We’re here to celebrate and understand Barack. And we all know that there are people outside of this room who aren’t as enlightened as we are about these topics and so I know you all understand what this clip means, but I’m glad it didn’t get out when Barack was introducing himself to the country. And let’s have a chuckle about that.”
His “we hid this” is a jovial fib among friends. Since clips of the same tape appeared on Frontline in 2008, the tape wasn’t hidden. I don’t know if Ogletree was the originator of the tape or the only one to possess a copy of it at any time. So it appears he wasn’t in a position to actually hide it…and the fact of it appearing on Frontline makes it less than hidden.
Do I think the media didn’t do a good job of vetting candidate Obama? Absolutely. Do I think the media willfully ignored evidence that would have negatively impacted Obama’s image in 2008? Undoubtedly. (To wit, the Rev. Wright story was out there from at least the day of Senator Obama’s campaign launch in Springfield (see Jodi Kantor, NYT) but never reverberated until the tapes got out.)
To pin some great conspiracy on a professor’s offhand interjection – a spontaneous laugh line — during his own talk is overstating the situation and it lacks both credibility and impact. If he were a reporter for The Boston Globe or co-presenting with a reporter, it would be different.
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 6:54 am221. Fox is trying to grow their margin. I’ve noticed Beckel is almost amiable. Clubbed cretin Colmes scarce. The attempt to present a more representative Left view is a move off Center to snag more of the so-libs.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 3/10/2012 @ 6:59 amThis is like Peter Seller’s involuntaruy reflex in Strangelove
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/headline/from-evil-empire-to-way-to-go-vlad/
narciso (87e966) — 3/10/2012 @ 7:03 amBeldar,
Don’t be so afraid of issues like this. The tide has turned.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2012 @ 7:04 am“His “we hid this” is a jovial fib among friends. Since clips of the same tape appeared on Frontline in 2008, the tape wasn’t hidden.”
koam – Tecnically Frontline used it in a voiced over, dubbed manner so people can say it was out there, but it’s not the same clip. It was not out there broadly, was it? Did any of his biographers from the right or left mention it?
The TUMC CD’s of Rev. Wright’s sermons started becoming unavailable when people became interested in his connection to Obama even though the church made money from their sale. In a blue state I wouldn’t think it takes much convincing to ask a public broadcasting station to hold on to a tape. Shoot, we know the LA Times is still sitting on the Obama/Khalidi tape.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/10/2012 @ 7:05 amdaleyrocks – yes, I’m not saying Frontline used the tape in full. I’m saying if Frontline had the tape, then Ogletree didn’t have the only copy of the tape locked up in Cambridge. He wasn’t in a position to hide it. If reporters were actually vetting Obama and saw Frontline, they saw the clip and could have looked into it further if they cared to.
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 7:11 amKoam,
I don’t know if this was a “great conspiracy” but it wouldn’t be unusual for the 2008 Obama campaign to use influential Harvard supporters to help vet their own candidate’s Law School years. Like you, I doubt Ogletree did anything singlehandedly, but do you doubt he knew about Obama, Bell, and this video event?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2012 @ 7:15 am“I’m saying if Frontline had the tape, then Ogletree didn’t have the only copy of the tape locked up in Cambridge.”
koam – I don’t think anyone has claimed Ogletree had it locked up. Buzzfeed said they got it from the PBS station in Boston. Breitbart said that station resisted giving it to them.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/10/2012 @ 7:15 amkoam – I look at the pattern of the 2008 campaign of hiding information about Obama’s background. This incident fits the pattern. Occam’s Razor.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/10/2012 @ 7:17 amHow much time was spent on the Weiner wrangling, in relative terms, that was very very off the mark from
narciso (87e966) — 3/10/2012 @ 7:19 amany policy issue, this is at the core of who Obama
is, and why does what he does.
It’s just not rocket surgery. Does it fit an observed pattern of behavior. My answer is yes. Therefore I don’t have to invent theories about grand conspiracies of who did what to whom in the parlor or the library.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/10/2012 @ 7:22 amDRJ, I don’t doubt Ogletree knew. I’m saying that his quote doesn’t literally mean that he thought about the video in 2008, nor does it literally mean that he went to any lengths to hide it. It’s pseudo-puffery in a lighthearted moment among like-minded people. So I think that when, in 2012, people go on TV and say, “See this proves that they were hiding this from us,” that that claim doesn’t hold up. I do think the media wilfully misled the public about Obama’s past. I don’t think this clip is the smoking gun as it has been positioned this week.
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 7:23 amOf course, it was a great conspiracy by the media to cover for Obama. I think Ogletree was aware information was being withheld and was pleased to help hide it.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2012 @ 7:24 amWhen the press comes to ask about your recollections of your good buddy from college who’s running for office, and you like the buddy and want him to win, you don’t bring up the bachelor party in Vegas (a fond memory), you bring up the all-nighters doing research projects and the volunteer work you did with him during the flood (useful memories for his campaign).
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 7:28 amI understand people can disagree about topics like this, but I don’t understand unqualified assertions that Ogletree’s words can’t be taken literally. Maybe he was being sarcastic or puffing up his role in the Obama campaign, and maybe he wasn’t.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2012 @ 7:36 amWe’ve been over this before, koam. Ogletree can hide whatever he wants but that doesn’t mean the media can or that he can help the media hide information.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2012 @ 7:40 amDRJ, I don’t doubt Ogletree knew. I’m saying that his quote doesn’t literally mean that he thought about the video in 2008
He effin said of course we hid it in 2008, which clearly meant he never thought about it in 2008. Good Allah
JD (d246fe) — 3/10/2012 @ 7:46 am“To my viewing” – I’m stating how I view the Ogletree tape – and I think others will too. Even if he were more specific in the tape about not talking about certain topics, I think that’s what people expect of his friends.
The real “shame on the media” factor in all this is that Harvard Law (and Columbia) aren’t 100% populated by lefties. Surely there were both profs and students who didn’t think so highly of Bell & Obama at the time. Where are those interviews?
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 7:49 amwhen you have professors, even if they’re just diversity-token loser professors at corrupt white trash schools like Harvard, what are in the business of hiding knowledges
something has gone very wrong in your once-respectable little country
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/10/2012 @ 8:19 amI’m all for wacko theories by egghead professors as long as they’re on campus and everyone is free to debate them.
From experience, I know that sometimes these liberal campuses are not exactly open to dissent. But in theory they should be. The trouble can be that if you ascribe to a more traditional, even liberal, view, in the relative framework of an oppressively radical institution, you can wind up being viewed as “the racist” (or “the racial incrementalist” or “the climate denier”, etc.) in the room. They do have a way of indoctrinating or at least having meetings where the radical view somehow becomes the norm. But, with skill and tact, there are ways for talented dissenters to get their voices across, even in the academy.
What worries me is if the theories are embodied in lifetime appointees to the USSC.
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 8:37 amAfter participating yesterday, and now having just read through last evening’s and the overnight and early morning posts on this thread I can clearly see one thing. Despite many thoughtful and thought-provoking comments, a number of passion filled screeds, some lawyer-type huffing, some practicing of long distance amateur psychology, several links to external supporting documentation, and some surprising testiness within the Patterico community–there is still a significant disconnect and lack of agreement here on the importance of Derrick Bell. (Yes. And this brilliant observation comes after only one cup of coffee.)
At this point the disconnect may be more about certain commenters (for whatever reason) being highly personally invested in a position they took, who are intent on defending that position and being “right” while getting others to admit they are wrong.
But I will take the higher road and assume that the controversy is really still over the broader theme of recognizing and overcoming traditional media’s self-appointed role in exclusively determining what things are allowed into our national narrative and allowed to become part of the national consciousness, and what things are not. We can argue all day about what might get “misconstrued” or what the MFM will force fit into their “conservative stereotype” or how the media will twist facts. There can be sincere disagreement about stories that some may personally view as unhelpful and as minor “look! squirrel!” distractions, but which others see as “essential truth” issues as relate to President Obama and his administration which must be squeeeezed around the media gate, brought to light and kept there. We can honorably argue about what is old news and what is new news. We can disagree about how much voters actually “knew” about Obama, versus what they should have been aware of and/or chose to ignore about him before they elected him.
But I guess I just don’t buy that there is an easy or a single correct answer here. And I don’t understand why some seem intent on squelching any possible avenue of attack or enlightenment. We are flying by the seat of our pants, people. Our nation is in peril. In this big and very diverse electorate the same story that one struggling citizen might hear anew and view as an eye-roller could be another person’s very real “eureka” or “aha” moment. We simply cannot allow the media to continue to have the power that has been ceded to them for too long.
elissa (b47460) — 3/10/2012 @ 8:40 amBeldar, I heard the laugh. I don’t think it’s the “antithetical laugh” (sarcasm at the expense of righty conspiracists) a bit.
My take: It’s a sardonic acknowledgement that bad optics were minimized then in anxiety of providing any ammunition to any sticky narrative developing about Obama’s radicalism or ugly pals, which was always a danger, if only in cumulative effect.
He might be laughing at himself for his carefulness in “de-arming” the video, and/or laughing at what was thought necessary then vs. what is necessary now. He’s quite right there is little need to clean it up now. Obama’s proved he can survive his past – his connections, if not openly admitted, are tacitly believed by even his supporters. Maybe most of all by his ardent supporters.
Connections won’t be enough, they were overlooked then and would be now in favor of opinions about his actions in office.
SarahW (b0e533) — 3/10/2012 @ 8:41 amJBD at #210 mentions an interesting tidbit, the editing of wikipedia on critical race theory. This is mentioned in the comments section by “Rational Thought”:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/08/video-cnn-beclowns-itself-painting-breitbart-editor-in-chief-as-racist/
following links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Critical_race_theory&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Critical_race_theory&diff=481069776&oldid=481011186
I can’t spend the time to look into this more today, someone should, don’t know if some of the older wikipedia will be erased.
Pretty condemning of the media in general if sources like Wikipedia can be shown to selectively edit to cover for Obama. Then again, theoretically possible somebody of intellectual integrity was trying to make things better. I don’t know, don’t have the time to investigate.
Painted Jaguar:
Hedgehogs are hedgehogs, turtles are turtles, armadillos are armadillos, and a koam is a koam.
Mr. Pollak should have said, “Of course I am afraid of Black People, my mother-in-law (father-in-law?) is one!!”
I think we all believe that Prof. Ogletree was “somewhat serious” in his remarks; the disagreement is whether he was “this was a serious conspiracy” serious or “those bitter clingers I can talk about because we are all friends here serious”.
To use the phrase, “Speak of the devil” with Alinsky and his proteges may be more appropriate than most uses of the term. Alinsky honored Lucifer as the first radical, he is also known, though not so honored, as the “father of lies” and the “accuser”.
Mr. Beldar, sir, I appreciate your response as to not being condemning. Yes, I bet you could be much more fierce if desired. I guess I am asking more interaction which is more “supportive in tone”, at least as I see it. I know if I was preparing a brief for court vs. writing a piece for a blog, I would write to different standards. Maybe that would be not a good thing, even though it would seem natural.
For example, if someone spoke up with Prof. Ogletree and said, “Sir, you’re not suggesting there was an active conspiracy, are you?”, he could say, “No, there was no specific conspiracy that I know of, but we all know we want some things said about us and other things not so loudly”, it would be helpful in the eyes of the outside observer, if that make sense.
Painted Jaguar (A sockpuppet) (3d3f72) — 3/10/2012 @ 8:41 am*subscribe
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 8:42 am“…embarrassed by the truth…”?
Truth is just another of those bourgeois values that keep “the little people” in their place.
AD-RtR/OS! (ced41f) — 3/10/2012 @ 8:43 amI don’t seen it as “squelching” – The more bad optics the merrier I guess. And it’s fun to knock the likes of Soledad off balance.
Recognizing it’s limited utility isn’t scquelching. It can only play to persons ready to ditch Obama who feel they have someplace else to go, and only as a sort of background aura permitting a psychological shift.
Offering rescue from Obama’s incompetence demonstrated in office is much more important.
SarahW (b0e533) — 3/10/2012 @ 8:47 amElissa, that’s reasonable. In fact, this is just a video of the president. There doesn’t really need to be a correct reason to put it out there. It doesn’t have to fit neatly into a propaganda campaign. It doesn’t have to expose the media.
It’s newsworthy even if it isn’t much of a bombshell. It’s an interesting look at the most powerful man in the world, about whom I believe we have insufficient background info.
That conceded, I also think this is probably going to evolve, with more videos, into a vetting campaign that eventually appears to have been well planned and coordinated, but that is not necessary.
Good comment.
I also think after Wright and Ayers and the way those were handled, it’s rather obvious what Ogletree meant. He and Ayers and Wright understood what was going on. Wright complained a bit (I guess because of his ego), but even he got the picture. They were hiding how radical Obama is because it’s in the left’s best interest. How hard is that to see?
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/10/2012 @ 8:48 amI bet she’s more careful when the next video emerges.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/10/2012 @ 8:49 amTake for example the kerfuffle over Rush and Fluke, Rush thinks he made a mistake, some advertisers pulled out thinking that was a good idea, now they are suffering, now Obama and co get asked about accepting money from maher who said worse things about palin without apology.
Who knows who won that one yesterday, who wins it today, and who will have won it 6 months from now.
Or the “Swiftboaters”, to some of the MSM and libs they are still seen as dishonest mudslingers who cost JFKerry the election, to others they are seen as courageous people who stood up to tell their version of what happened. Did they do the right thing? Did conservatives who applauded them do the right thing?
I think I would like to have a cup of Elissa’s coffee. I bet it’s from Peru, in the watershed of the deep, dark, turbid waters of the Amazon.
Painted Jaguar (A sockpuppet) (3d3f72) — 3/10/2012 @ 8:50 amI’m sorry I didn’t reply sooner, Beldar. I didn’t see this comment.
I simply disagree with you on this. I think Obama’s selection of material + his treatment of Bell does in fact say something about what he supports.
I’m not saying every professor who teaches this material supports it. In fact, the professor who covered it in my class thought it was bunk. But the course only gave a summary, a brief reading, and then moved on to more interesting things.
It really depends. If we’re talking about someone who is explaining communism without taking a stand on it, of course this is absurd.
But if we’re talking about someone who made Anita Dunn like comments, and devoted their seminar classes in law school to Mao repeatedly, and was uncritical or in fact favorable of Mao’s teachings, I think yes, that does prove they are a commie.
This is a very good point, and I need to keep that in mind. Given what I know about Obama and his other pals, I think there’s a strong case that he agreed with radicals like Bell. But even if I’m right, it’s important that this case is laid out clearly so it doesn’t come across as paranoia and bias.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/10/2012 @ 8:56 amelissa, I agree overall. Though I don’t advocate squelching, I do advocate discussing whether certain lines of attack may play into the opposition’s themes (which have proven successful to date) and, thus, risk backfiring.
sarahw, I agree as well.
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 8:57 amAnd to be clear, I don’t mind if there are professors who endorse communism in school. Universities are the perfect place for radical views to be promoted, so long as others have academic freedom to disagree (which is not always the case).
I think that professors who go nuts teaching Rules for Radicals, working with Bill Ayers on shaping education and propaganda, and focus on Critical Race Theory shouldn’t be President. I think folks should look at this stuff and realize this is not impressive. If Obama had actually been teaching Administrative Law and foreign policy classes in a serious way that showed he had broad expertise, that would be great, but what I’ve seen of his teaching is he is an expert on a narrow radical slice of the political spectrum.
And the place for that kind of character is in a university or perhaps congress (representing a radical district) instead of the White House.
I appreciate Beldar’s alarm that my case is stretched too far. I admit I’m making a few assumptions based on what else I know of Obama that he was not merely offering a survey of various issues. I think Obama’s defense will likely be close to what Beldar is saying: that he was merely covering ideas in a class and he didn’t actually agree with them.
But why, then, has his administration employed Van Jones, Anita Dunn, and met with Derick Bell (a bona fide bigot) among a horde of other radicals? Why is Eric Holder, Mr ‘Discussion of Race needed’ running insane anti gun rights operations? Why is the spending level everything Cloward and Piven could hope for?
I think Obama’s a radical. I think this is a circumstantial case that makes a lot of sense.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/10/2012 @ 9:05 amReally this is a discussion of Breitbart vetting story selection & rollout strategy. (For the record, I’m all for the vetting campaign and hope it works.)
What is needed is an assessment of prior “Big Breitbart Stories” and their effectiveness.
We know for a fact that the professional, organized, coordinate Left holds the Breitbart brand in contempt and has a specific set of talking points against every prior major Breitbart story. In most cases, those talking points are pure bull. With one exception, to my mind.
Off the top of my head, the Breitbart stories that made a difference are:
ACORN
WEINER
NPR
and we all know the Left’s counter-arguments to those stories (unfair journalistic practices, selective editing, racial overtones, etc.) And we know how to fight back against the Left’s arguments on each of these stories. All 3 of the above resulted in big gaping wounds to the Left. ACORN was defunded by the US Congress. Weiner wass exposed and run out of office by his own party. NPR’s executive suite was decimated and it faced federal funding cuts.
They are undeniably victories for Breitbart.
(I don’t know enough about Pigford to comment, but it also goes right at race.)
The one story that hangs out there in limboland is SHERROD. The way that story rolled out, people saw the edited video first and the video (without the full ending), as edited, in which Ms. Sherrod comes off as unfairly racially motivated, was attributed to Breitbart. He was successful in getting that story played on both right-wing and left-wing MSM media. And she looked very bad that first day or two. I know that Breitbart had his defense of that story – that the full article told her full story but that no one read it. I think it remains a grey area how that story rolled out – I’m no expert (and I’m sure you have your arguments why this story is not an issue) – but I do think Sherrod is the one story, out of the many Breibart wins, thatremains a grey area. One that is difficult to argue for as being completely fair to this woman. And the Administration got sucked into it and now it lingers in court. I know there are probably great arguments in Breitbart’s defense on this one story, but they haven’t been well disseminated in my view. It remains the go-to story for those who condemn the Breitbart method.
So my greater concern is that this Vetting campaign (and the Bell focus) doesn’t become another Sherrod story. I’m sincerely hoping that it becomes an NPR story.
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 9:18 amThere are a lot of radicals in this world, Dustin. Some of them aren’t so bad.
Random (38d59c) — 3/10/2012 @ 9:20 amRadicals can be tolerated in the academic sphere, for there they are only “interesting” and sometimes “cranks”.
AD-RtR/OS! (ced41f) — 3/10/2012 @ 9:23 amBut, when they have their hands on the levers of power in DC, they are dangerous, not only to the society and economy that has done more to erase that “bad luck” that Heinlein spoke of, but to the world at large which teeters positively between modernity and savagery through the (mostly) good graces of this despised, corrupt, and evil country that such radicals despise.
“…the full article told her full story but that no one read it…”
If you lead a horse to water, and he refuses to drink it and dies;
AD-RtR/OS! (ced41f) — 3/10/2012 @ 9:26 amare you the bad man?
Amen, AD.
But I think Academia needs more reactionaries and conservatives.
My view is that the Vietnam war saw a ton of lefties flood the academy and once there they were so insecure that they erected a lot of unspoken barriers to conservatism, which they think is evil. And that has to be fixed.
I want college students to look straight at Critical Race Theory and understand it well enough to summarize it as well as Beldar did.
But let’s get real: most folks do not devote semesters to covering Critical Race Theory and Rules for Radicals among all topics a law school could cover.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/10/2012 @ 9:30 amThe Derrick Bells of the academic world always struck me as political hustlers in the same manner as Jackson and Sharpton, and lets not forget Ron Everett (aka Dr. Maulana Karenga), who exploit a serious societal problem negatively to advance themselves professionally, politically, and economically, with callous disregard to those they leave in their wake.
AD-RtR/OS! (ced41f) — 3/10/2012 @ 9:43 amkoam:
The media and education, especially elite universities like Harvard, are the guardians of groupthink and the modern liberal agenda — and they have been since at least the 1980s. The only way to change that is for conservative individuals and groups to have the courage to speak against it.
That’s why individuals and groups like Breitbart and FIRE are so important, because they take risks in their personal lives and careers to speak out. Is it possible some conservative speech may misfire? Absolutely. Is it worth it anyway? I think it is.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2012 @ 9:44 amIn other words, koam, the way we retake our culture from liberals is the same way they took it in the first place: Drip by drip, like water erosion in the Grand Canyon. Some drips may be wasted or ineffective but it takes time to move mountains.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2012 @ 9:48 amI went to a panel talk at a liberal college a few years ago in which most of the Economics Department professors were discussing & explaining the new financial crisis.
One of the lefty Marxist type professors got up at the start and instructed that no one was to bring up that Fannie Mae, Barney Frank, and company were to partly accountable for the crisis for pushing mortgages on segments of the population who historically had high default rates because that argument was flatly racist and offensive.
“And don’t tell me…”
He shut off the argument to a room full of students and community members before anyone even brought it up. If a student brought it up he’d be self-declaring as a racist.
True story.
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 9:48 am== when they have their hands on the levers of power in DC, they are dangerous, not only to the society and economy that has done more to erase that “bad luck” that Heinlein spoke of, but to the world at large ==
I’m glad you made this important point, AD. Yes there is an immediate and obvious distinction between radicals in tenured academia and the radicals who have been able to get their hands on the actual levers of government power. The slow motion damage from radical academics is no less insidious however. They can hardly be casually tolerated. They are more than “interesting” (as someone else posited) and are certainly not benign “cranks”. One needs only to compare the classroom discussions, assignments and course study in American schools today (going all the way down to the primary grades) versus twenty years ago. It is even more pronounced when you compare how children were taught 40 years ago.
Radicals in “the academic sphere” have been plodding away doing their jobs well. It is evident when you look at the journolist.
elissa (b47460) — 3/10/2012 @ 9:51 amDRJ, the openness of dissent at Rochester University, and the richness of its discussion, is a sterling example of the failure of the current academe.
When you have “goons” invading the classrooms of a professor who has openly challenged the group-think being promulgated by the leader of the university with apparent encouragement and acquisence of that leader, academic independence and the freedom of inquiry seem to be lost in the shuffle.
AD-RtR/OS! (ced41f) — 3/10/2012 @ 9:52 amkoam,
Variations on that story have probably been replicated at every college in America and K-12 schools, too. I don’t expect students to be the ones who stand up against it — that’s unfair to ask children and teens to fight this battle. It’s up to us, and I wish I had the guts to do it as well as Breitbart did.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2012 @ 9:52 amAD,
Your points are excellent. Frankly, I’m far more discouraged to see what’s happened in education than in our political environment. As elissa said, education impacts generations of Americans just as politics does, but I think our education problems will be harder to undo.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2012 @ 9:56 amIt is time (well past time actually) for parents to stand up to the EduCrat/Public Employee Union/Radical LW Interest Group cabal that has taken control of all levels of education in America today, that is tearing apart the fabric of society that was built so painfully over many generations, that has benefitted so many for so long, not only here but world-wide.
As the old story goes:
AD-RtR/OS! (ced41f) — 3/10/2012 @ 9:58 amWhen America sneezes, the World catches cold – and we’ve been sneezing for far too long.
Painted Jaguar:
Very good point, as well as your point about Rush and Fluke. What seems problematic today may be a winner tomorrow.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2012 @ 10:00 amWe should be appealing to the middle instead of focusing on things that might be deemed racist.
JD (d246fe) — 3/10/2012 @ 10:02 amEverything conservatives do is racist in today’s world, JD, but I don’t need to tell you that.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2012 @ 10:03 am_____________________________________________
My view is that the Vietnam war saw a ton of lefties flood the academy
But it’s not just college campuses but American society in general that has grown more liberal through the decades. It’s best symbolized by the way the Hollywood community (again, Hollywood, no less) back in the 1950s actually chastised actress Ingrid Bergman for having a child out of wedlock. Now the goal posts have been pushed so far to the left, that in order to be a good liberal, a nitwit like Cher feels she must wail about an attempt by Republicans (or whatever horrible non-leftist entity she conjures up in her mind) to push society back to the Dark Ages, and how bigoted (how reactionary! how racist!) it is for people to get the creeps over her daughter becoming a transgendered male.
Move forward a few decades, and it wasn’t that long ago when a local government official in a city like LA who had a history as a user of cocaine would have been deemed as very controversial and likely booted out of office. Now it’s so much quaint background noise. Of course, Obama’s hometown, Chicago, has been notorious for various forms of corruption for eons, so maybe it’s fitting that in the 21st century, as goes Chicago, so goes urban America in general.
However, from a standpoint of politics along purely economic lines, we’re not as leftwing as we were during the last great downturn. Or the 1930s when both Republican Herbert Hoover and Democrat Franklin Roosevelt happily pushed income taxes sky high, up towards the 80 percentile range. Or a time in US history that must make the OWS crowd misty eyed and envious of.
Mark (31bbb6) — 3/10/2012 @ 10:08 amIn conjunction with today’s world of radical academia, Insty links to a compelling look at mob censorship when a professor opts to look objectively at the Limbaugh fluke.
Most worrisome, however, is the fact that UR allowed its students to disrupt Landsburg’s class without any consequences, despite the fact that campus security was on the scene. What happened in Landsburg’s class is a textbook example of “mob censorship,” where a group of people silence or drown out a speaker with whose views they disagree. A classroom is perhaps the least appropriate place for something like this to happen, and the fact that UR did not see fit to clear the heckling students out of the class is disturbing. If UR truly values “freedom of expression of ideas and action,” it should make clear that those who engage in mob censorship will be punished and that it will tolerate no further disruptions of campus speakers, be they professors like Landsburg or (the more common target) invited speakers like former Congressman Tom Tancredo, Minutemen leader Jim Gilchrist, or General David Petraeus.
Young people are effectively brainwashed when they are the most passionate and naive. And it’s all the more effective when in their own eyes, they believe themselves to be fighting the fight that no one else dares to. Forty years of this and the tides will be very difficult and very slow to turn.
Dana (4eca6e) — 3/10/2012 @ 10:16 amThis was the top story on the CNN Politics page this morning:
Obama’s Harvard law professor challenged U.S. racism
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 10:21 amAnd this is the top story at Breitbart.com:
Subtitle: Obama: “Open your hearts and open your minds to the words of Prof. Derrick Bell.”
The media is in the tank for Obama but let’s give it time.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2012 @ 10:24 am______________________________________________
Radicals in “the academic sphere” have been plodding away doing their jobs well.
And they’ve done such a good job that, as I’ve mentioned previously, observe the socio-political tentacles of their influence on no less than the US military (again, the US military), which tolerated a fanatic like Nidal Hasan right up until the day he massacred people at Fort Hood.
We’ve gone from a time when it was controversial to have segregation in the military, which Harry Truman dealt with in the 1940s, to a time when it’s less than shocking that someone like an anti-US-, pro-Sharia-law-spouting member of the Armed Forces not only isn’t reprimanded, but is even tolerated or, worse, shrugged off by those around him.
Mark (31bbb6) — 3/10/2012 @ 10:24 amlink is broken Mr. koam
did they mention about how Obama’s Harvard law professor worked to foment hatred of jews?
That seems newsy to me.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/10/2012 @ 10:25 amJust eyeballing, but I’d estimate that <1% of comments at CNN aren't mocking Breitbart.
We need some representation over there!
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 10:27 amhappyfeet, thanks for alerting me. I tried the link again and it worked for me.
Here it is again:
CNN Politics Headline: Obama’s Harvard law professor challenged U.S. racism
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/09/election/2012/derrick-bell-profile/index.html
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 10:29 amhappyfeet – the CNN article (byline Tom Cohen) doesn’t mention Jews.
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 10:31 amthanks! … is this some kind of goofy obamawhore slap upside McCain’s head you think?
“He was a celebrated maverick before that word lost its luster.”
I don’t know how else to read that.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/10/2012 @ 10:32 amJust noticed this on the CNN Prof. Bell profile that was the top story on Politics this morning:
Perhaps the story is being tweaked? I don’t have an archive of the original for comparison.
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 10:34 amDerrick Bell and Jewish Republican Paranoia by Jonathan Chait
click for to read our friend Jonathan allow that
Bell is not an anti-Semite, but he has tolerated anti-Semitism.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/10/2012 @ 10:36 amBah. I thought it was a video but it’s writings and the post was already up yesterday. Check John Sexton at Big Government.
Patterico (83dc83) — 3/10/2012 @ 10:45 amMy takeaway from the writings is that they demonstrated her scholarship, rather than her endorsement.
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 10:56 amI don’t this as a set of Obamaesque false choices of focusing on pre-inauguration activities or post-inauguration activities as some have characterized it. College educations or tax cuts for millionaires? Medicine for grandma or tax expenditures for oil companies?
The Breitbart sites are just a small part of the conservative media. The video released this week is not starving other stories of oxygen.
I think it is a mistake for people to assume they know how people who voted for Obama in 2008 think and what will cause them to change their minds in 2012. If they voted for Obama in 2008, they almost by definition don’t think rationally, so it’s not worth the time and effort of trying to analyze their thought patterns.
What is worth the effort is getting information, old or new, through the media blockade, to expose the truth about the president and his performance and to show the American people they have been and are being lied to.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/10/2012 @ 11:06 am“Bell is not an anti-Semite, but he has tolerated anti-Semitism.”
Mr. Feets – Prof. Bell considered Louis Farrakhan one of his heroes. Do you think that is the kind of toleration they mean?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/10/2012 @ 11:10 amIt seems situational ethics are always involved;
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/04/13/barry-brings-up-the-rear/
narciso (87e966) — 3/10/2012 @ 11:17 amI think this is the link mentioned in Comment by Patterico — 3/10/2012 @ 10:45 am: The Vetting: Obama’s Supreme Court and Critical Race Theory. Here is an excerpt:
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2012 @ 11:25 amI tend to think it’s a big country and a long campaign, and talking about an issue like this in March on the Breitbart and Patterico blogs and others like them is unlikely to cost us the election — but is likely to give our allies ammunition that didn’t exist before. They can use it as they see fit. I don’t share the confidence so many here seem to share that a candidate’s radical past is utterly irrelevant. It may not be the most important factor in the campaign . . . but then, who said it was?
No, of course it won’t cost us the election and may or may not be useful in presenting the argument against Obama and revealing *who* he is at the core, but, the effectiveness is dependent upon the openness and curiosity of the receiver – and that’s what I don’t see. That doesn’t make the information itself irrelevant, simply its usefulness is as limited as the listener’s curiosity or attention span. And that was my original point, if inartfully presented.
The voters I am in daily communication with at work, are far less interested in information like this than they are about gas prices, plummeting economy, taxes – things that directly impact them on a daily basis. They are not interested in connecting the dots; they appear unconcerned with President Obama’s true nature – and ironically, still support him because he feeds their basic and direct concern: support of public sector unions. It’s a short-sighted, narrow and self-serving consideration of concerns. These are voters who will continue to support him and independents who see their self-interests served. What is most ironic is that these are teachers….
(Personally, I think Hannity’s endless whine of “Obama, the Radical in Chief” has backfired. I confess I loathe him so much (Hannity), that I’m more irritated and distracted by his breathless huffing rather than re-considering the context of the tag. Perhaps the left even moreso…)
Dana (4eca6e) — 3/10/2012 @ 11:26 amI think also he just plain hated jews Mr. daley, if his stupid space book is to be believed
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/10/2012 @ 11:27 amGood post, Dana.
I agree. I posted about Hannity and his image earlier.
We have to remember that the Obama Mania Media, as Hannity puts it, does believe that we are a bunch of mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, Neanderthals who are fresh back from our Klan meetings. And they preach to the masses to be on the lookout for our thinly-veiled racist rantings.
Aligning with Hannity’s histrionics can make us look just as dumb (to them) as we think people who love & quote idiots like Joan Walsh and Soledad O’Brien are.
It’s not pretty, but it’s a fact. We need to appeal to the people you mention…the ones you are in daily communication with at work, on the terms that matter to those people.
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 11:38 amIs this a fair description of the divide in our conservation?
(1) People who want to focus solely on the economy and tread carefully on other issues to avoid alienating voters in the election, vs
(2) People who want to aggressively attack Obama on all issues.
I don’t know if this is accurate but I’m curious what others think.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2012 @ 11:50 amDRJ, more than just the economy…the nanny state, stupid decisions in office (examples abound: Fast & Furious, Solyndra & the others, etc, our Constitutional liberties, His know-it-all condescension, which I think is far worse than Mitt’s alleged out-of-touchness, what else?).
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 11:54 amIneptitude: Remember how it took a year for Obama to even make a decision on Afghanistan?
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 11:56 amDRJ – Are both 1 and 2 racist or only 2?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/10/2012 @ 12:03 pmdaleyrock – opposing Obama speaks for itself, dontcha know?
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 12:06 pm@ 319,
Absolutely not. You have broken it down very narrowly and I think inaccurately.
People on both sides see the importance and relevance of the release video and subsequent Soledad vid. Nobody has claimed that they want to tiptoe on these issues (that I’ve read, I may missed it), nor is there a reluctance to attack on anything and everything.
The point I’m trying to make is, what will resonate with undecided voters. What is *their* main concern and focus, and what will penetrate their mindset enough to pull them to our side.
Dana (4eca6e) — 3/10/2012 @ 12:07 pmFurther, it’s important to continue presenting evidence of his true nature and intent as it becomes available and hopefully, that will collectively have its intended effect.
And if my opinion makes me racist, whatever.
Dana (4eca6e) — 3/10/2012 @ 12:09 pmDRJ correctly identified the link to the Kagan piece.
I have a long and I think interesting new post on it, here.
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/10/2012 @ 12:19 pmOf course it does. You’re a conservative, are you not?
Racists
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/10/2012 @ 12:20 pmI think Andrew was on the right track with Occupy & Anonymous.
We need to make the case that links Occupy to Obama, his political allies, the professional Left, Media, & Big Labor.
He already craftily moved the G8 from his beloved Chicago to militarily fortified Camp David, because he knows he & Rahm can’t manage his army of freaks in the streets of the Windy City. It would have been a huge blemish on his presidency if the G8 had faced violence on his watch in his home town.
But when those Occupy bastards get violent this summer, and they will, in Charlotte, Tampa and elsewhere, voters will know who coddled them all last year.
Ditto for Anonymous.
koam @wittier (88a9fd) — 3/10/2012 @ 12:20 pmMy takeaway from the writings is that Pollak was right, and Soledad O’Brien was either lying or ignorant when she called his accurate characterization a misreading.
But the place to discuss that is my new post.
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/10/2012 @ 12:22 pmDana:
Okay. What is their main concern and focus, and how are we supposed to talk about it?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2012 @ 12:34 pmWe should appeal to the middle, and go out of our way to not say nor do anything that the MFM might try to use against us.
JD (318f81) — 3/10/2012 @ 1:51 pmI am offended at all of these white black references. People are putting a lot of weight into off the cuff unprovable rethoric rubbish editorials of no facts or documenation. No one will appoligize for any of these untrue accusations meant solely to hurt people based on their race.
FLhonda (891c3c) — 3/10/2012 @ 1:54 pmComplete rubbish. Performance art.
JD (318f81) — 3/10/2012 @ 2:05 pm271. Comment by Painted Jaguar (A sockpuppet) — 3/10/2012 @ 8:41 am
I can’t spend the time to look into this more today, someone should, don’t know if some of the older wikipedia will be erased.
Wikipedia entries are almost never erased. You can retrieve all possible versions since the beginning, although you can’t do a search of the contents of all of the multiple versions, and only one is live at the moment. Articles can be protected, and they can also be captured by people who will maintain a point of view, sometimes dishonestly using and abusing seemingly neutral Wikipedia rules.
At the moment it looks like the Critical Race Theory article has been reverted to a version before “media attention”
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Critical_race_theory&action=history
15:01, 9 March 2012 Wgfinley (talk | contribs) . . (14,268 bytes) (-1,138) . . (Reverted to revision 480786012 by Haymouse: Restoring to version prior to media attention, see talk. (TW))
Here’s an earlier part of the History page (with comments by editors) It’s in reverse chronological order.
# cur | prev) 21:51, 8 March 2012 ClueBot NG (talk | contribs) m . . (14,398 bytes) (+14) . . (Reverting possible vandalism by 131.123.112.12 to version by 68.54.72.114. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (942575) (Bot))
# (cur | prev) 21:50, 8 March 2012 131.123.112.12 (talk) . . (14,384 bytes) (-14) . . (Undid revision 480894761 by 68.54.72.114 (talk))
# (cur | prev) 21:15, 8 March 2012 68.54.72.114 (talk) . . (14,398 bytes) (+14) . . (This has obviously been changed so it matches Soledad Obrien’s empty-headed explanation on television last night. I’d like to see the language of the theorists used whenever possible, transient political squabbles be damned.)
This is the Wikipedia talk page about the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Critical_race_theory
Towards the end:
Press Attention
I’ve tagged this article with the press references, they are as follows:
* On Soledad O’Brien’s CNN show she was directly quoting the first lines of this article as the definition (as the article existed at the time): [2]
* Jim Treacher of The Daily Caller noted this and the resulting edit war on this article: [3]
It seems there are efforts by even registered editors to start some partisan edit warring here, I’ve fully protected the page for 2 days until the media attention cools down. I was tempted to revert it back to the way it was before the press attention but thought better of it. –WGFinley (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
What has gone on here over the last day or two is really troubling. This page was established long before the mash up on CNN and now it’s being edited to reflect the sterile, innocuous definition that Soledad O’Brien posited. Long before CNN’s piece, CRT was understood here to be an examination of how the US legal system reinforces “white supremacy” and that was clearly documented by the scholarly writings of Cornell West (Harvard/Yale & others) and Adrienne Dixson (Ohio State). That phrase may not sit well with some, but there’s no logical argument for changing it. The “white supremacy” foundation of CRT was posited by SUPPORTERS of the theory long before it became a political issue, and now history is being revised to lessen the damage to the President’s and O’Brien’s reputations. This can’t be allowed to stand, or Wiki will just be turned into another blog. Clearly, the article should include a mention of its assumption of white supremacy being reinforced by the America legal system and the best way to do that is to go back to version of the article of yesterday morning. Phocion1 (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that “white supremacy” is a loaded phrase with two different meanings. The one I believe that’s used by the CRT people means whites have a higher level of control and privilege. The other, more common meaning, and one that people react viscerally to, is that of the “White Power” and KKK crowd. That’s what the Breitbart crowd are seizing on and are exploiting. There needs to be a replacement of, or fleshing out of, that hot-button phrase in the entry to clarify what the CRT advocates mean. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
But, it’s their phrase. Dixson’s book came out in ’06. There may have been a couple interpretations of “white supremacy” 20-30 years ago, but Dixson was characterizing the theory this way 5-6 years ago. Having read a great deal of social theory, I’m sure their books have whole chapters discussing how they define white supremacy. But, that’s not a reason to keep the term out of the article. It’s controversial, probably intentionally so given Dixson’s publishing date. So, let’s have the conversation they want us to have. Leave it in the article, allow it draw further contributions/context and we’re all better off for having a fuller understanding. We can’t sit on someone’s stated views because we’re not sure we understand them correctly…that’s censorship. Phocion1 (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
no, that’s not “censorship”. we owe the readers an article that easily places the concept of the article in appropriate context (as far as we can, using existing reliable sources]]. Deliberately leaving confusing jargon is inappropriate. — The Red Pen of Doom 13:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Censorship might be a bit harsh given the forum…I’ll give you that. But, I was trying to be polite by allowing for “other interpretations” of the phrase “white supremacist”. The simple facts are that practitioners/scholars/theorists SUPPORTIVE of CRT are using the phrase in published material and in interviews. They are the ones introducing what you call jargon into the discussion, not their detractors.So, if you want to alter the article from where it stood for years…including yesterday at this time…the burden should be on you to prove that they mean anything OTHER than the generally accepted concept/definition of white supremacist. What else did they mean? Phocion1 (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
This is my first exposure to this sort of edit warring on Wikipedia and I am horrified. I will no longer be able to trust any entry on here that has a political context. I suspect many, many thousands of others will now come to the same conclusion. I have been an adamant defender of Wikipedia even at the public school but now I will fall silent. I will also stop donating. The facts in this case are simple. The article here on Wikipedia was more or less stable until a media event spawned a political revision. Fair enough, political revision in and of itself is not bad (it’s how history has always been written — revised repeatedly) and the democratic nature of this site certainly leads on to believe that bursts of activity and revision are likely, but to have a sanctioned editor blessed by the Wikipedia organization step in and LOCK this entry into a state different than it existed in before the uproar is so biased it is staggering. I can understand reverting to and locking down the state on 3/7 but clearly this individual is interested in locking the entry down to a revised and preferred form until the peak of attention passes. Why not lock it down to its original state and then revise it when cooler heads prevail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.201.147 (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The real Wikipedia. This is how it’s done. This is how it’s always done. There are actually studies and scientific polls about this, it’s become such an issue. Wikipedia has a systemic bias, and they’re cool with that. In an interview with PBS, Jimmy Wales said as much. So why not do it another way? Oh, they’ll make token efforts, they’ll even in their conscious mind say NPOV is truly the goal (self-justification for violations of this come later), and not all editors are the same, certainly, but the bias is still systemic and, when you think about it for a moment, you’ll quickly understand why. 1) The most active segment of Wikipedia’s population is biased heavily to one direction; nonpartisan polling shows this. 2) Heavy bias leads to agenda-pushing, self-applied blinders, and great offense at facts that don’t fit your own world view. 3) Agenda-pushers’ heads never cool, so “cooler heads” will never prevail on topics where a large number of them are involved. 4) Agenda-pushers will always be involved on political topics like this that grace their favorite blogs as well as on articles about “political celebrities” like Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann or what-have-you because the hotheads put all these “controversial” topics on their watch lists. (I can’t even get non-controversial, indisputably relevant, apolitical, extremely-well-sourced facts (like which school someone attended, per school records, and per the person themselves unashamedly saying as much on CNN) on such pages because they’re perceived as… some sort of slight? I can’t even relate to you what the excuse was other than “consensus says no”, which is asinine… by hot-and-bothered agenda-pushers.) — 67.166.108.180 (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Once you really know how Wikipedia works, and have read all the policies, and have taken part in numerous open-ended discussions here — then, and only then, do you have the right to criticize how it works. I have been active on this encyclopedia for almost three years, and it’s only getting better. You must be one of those “agenda-pushers” you’re talking about. They don’t last here. –Skol fir (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Reverting To Pre-News Version
After sleeping on this and going through the article’s history this article had been stable for some time before the media mention. I hate to lose some of the sourcing that was done but I can’t agree with established consensus that was changed due to some media attention to the article. This is not an endorsement of any version of the article, just what appears to make logical sense to me as portions of this article were read verbatim on CNN and then some partisan editing on both sides started happening. Once the article exits protection I hope work can ben continued to add sourced information to improve the article. –WGFinley (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Edit request
{{Request edit}} Completed
Request that the current unsourced sentence of the second third paragraph of the lead
Appearing in US law schools in the mid- to late 1980s, Critical Race Theory inherited many of its political and intellectual commitments from civil rights scholarship and Critical Legal Studies, even as the movement departed significantly from both.
be replaced by this sentence cited to a published source
Appearing in US law schools in the mid- to late 1980s, Critical Race Theory began as a reaction to Critical Legal Studies,[2]
Thank you. — The Red Pen of Doom 15:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
* Looks sensible to me, if there are no serious objections I will make the requested edit later today. –WGFinley (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Sammy Finkelman (63b67e) — 3/11/2012 @ 1:11 amNPOV = Neutral Point of View
Here is the Derrick Bell article: (It’s a pretty short one)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Bell
There’s a section after his death.
It actually has the wrong year for Obama’s speech:
In popular media
This section contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (March 2012)
His short story “The Space Traders” was adapted in 1994 by director Reginald Hudlin and writer Trey Ellis. It aired on HBO as the leading segment of a three-part television anthology entitled Cosmic Slop, which focused on minority centric Science Fiction.[8]
In March 2012, Bell became the target of conservative media, including Breitbart.com and Sean Hannity, in an attempt to attack President Barack Obama. The attacks focused on a 1988 video of Obama introducing Bell at a Harvard protest.[9]
Sammy Finkelman (63b67e) — 3/11/2012 @ 1:24 amMr. Finkelman, sir,
My mummy (ever so kind and patient) would be proud to have you as one of her cubs, for you have been ever so diligent and thoughtful in answering my plea.
I am glad you did the work, and not I, for just reading it reminds me of talking to an armadillo (which my mummy told not to do again).
It seems a mixed bag. Some tried to alter things, others were aghast that such would be attempted.
But my poor jaguar brain does not know if I should be relieved and happy that intellectual honesty is alive and well, or that mischief would run a muck if allowed. Could you, Brotherly Bradley Fikes the journalist, and a few others comment on whether I should rest easy tonight, or prowl back and forth with a low growl.
Thank you ever so much. I owe you one, if you ever get lost by the deep, dark, turbid waters of the Amazon.
Painted Jaguar (a sockpuppet) (3d3f72) — 3/11/2012 @ 2:42 pmWow story.
Bill (af584e) — 3/11/2012 @ 8:13 pmBrother Bradley, Mr. Finkelman, and others.
Please, inform me of your opinions on this. Are we to be reassured that there are intellectually honest people over at Wikipedia, or worried that there are people there who would like to join the propaganda effort?
I need to travel a while before i can find a wi-fi hot spot by the deep, dark, turbid waters of the Amazon. (“Hot spots” I can find innumerable, but Wi-Fi ones are another issue).
Painted Jaguar (A sockpuppet) (3d3f72) — 3/12/2012 @ 10:51 amTo quote Mr. Pollak on Dennis Prager today, “This is just the beginning”.
Mr. Prager wants the name of the LAT person with “the tape”, and wants to make that name a household word of shame until it is released.
Painted Jaguar (A sockpuppet) (3d3f72) — 3/12/2012 @ 3:08 pm