Now we know what a black man can't do...even if he's the President

"that isn't racist" - that's the genius of being the foxes guarding the henhouse.

Long live the Jackie Robinson rules.

it will remain this way.

Unless we break up these media giants the message will remain the same.

And their dialogue sensationalizing these kind of stories is disgusting!

Sometimes we say, "Isolated case!"

Pres Obama said what he had to say in the beginning for it to get to a point that a lot of people are talking about it..and then he diffuses it with a call to Gates and a call to Crowley with an invitation to communicate over a beer at the White House.

This isn't over yet but it's on the path to healing and a teaching lesson which is a good thing to have in the racial tensions of America.

Can't wait for the next phase of the journey..I do not look at it as surrender and I'm sorry if others see it that way.

just that some people feels black people have always been forced to play by the
Jackie Robinson rule and it's about time.... that changes.

with people(assholes) that we have in Congress and hate radio.

:kick:

...and that Gates was his friend.

Leaving it at that would have been a great answer.


Instead, without all of the facts, he stated that the police "acted stupidly", launching a media feeding frenzy.

This has nothing to do with "a black man" making an assessment of race relations (Obama gave an entire prime-time speech on the subject and didn't generate much negative press).

It's an issue of a person in power (of any race or gender) making judgments without knowing the facts of the case while addressing the entire American public.

...and it was an irresponsible thing to do.

A little point you seem to be overlooking.

It's also, apparently, Obama's opinion.

...and that's fine, but (right or wrong) those in power have a responsibility to consider not only how they feel, but the consequences of expressing that feeling to the general public in a national address.

I maintain that it's irresponsible for ANY President to make public judgments about an incident for which they admit they don't have all of the facts.

...and it's certainly not universally held amongst the general public.

because they aren't the majority and they don't count.

So there. You really need to learn how to stay in your place and just shut up.

:sarcasm:

He was asked what the incident said about the state of race relations today.

He answered that he didn't have enough facts to say whether race played a role in the arrest. He went on to say that, based on what he DID know, however, the police acted "stupidly" in arresting Gates. He NEVER accused the police of racial profiling and did not "make a judgment without knowing the facts." He offered his opinion based on the facts that he knew. And he has yet to be proven wrong.

You are doing what far too many in the media are doing - conflating the President's acknowledgment that he did not have enough facts to speak on on the racial element of the case with his subsequent comments about the arrest, which were based on the facts that he DID know. Mischaracterizing the President's comments in this way only makes these discussions more problematic

Obama did not state he didn't know all the details of the case. He said he didn't know enough about the case to determine if race played a role. It really kills your argument when you purposely mislead with what Obama 'clearly stated.'

This has nothing to do with "a black man" making an assessment of race relations

It kills me when people are so insistent that this has nothing to do with race. OK thanks for clearing that up!

speak as a witness to a situation where he wasn't present. But that holds for white people too.

It's strange how some white folks (especially those in the media) LOVE to brag on the fact that we have a black president, as if it validates their own open-mindedness. They talk about his blackness, what it means, how it impacts race relations in America, etc. Yet the minute he says or does anything that indicates HE thinks he is black or offers his own observations about race relations in America, he is shouted down and told to shut up because he's out of line.

This happened throughout the campaign to an immensely annoying degree. Remember George Stephanopoulos asking him how much of his "cool demeanor on the campaign trail" had to do with his race? And how they polled endlessly about how black people viewed him? And how they talked on and on and on and on about how his blackness affected his campaign, voters and the country, blah blah blah. Yet, whenever HE said anything about race - for example, when he mentioned that he didn't look like the other presidents on the money - they went berserk with criticism of him for "playing the race card."

The Gates incident is only the latest in this pattern. HE didn't bring this up. He was asked a question - a question that would never have been asked of a white president - about what the Gates arrest said about the state of race relations in America. He answered the question honestly.

And all hell broke loose. Because everyone else can talk about race. But HE can't. At least not on his terms.

Because now, all of a sudden, he's being called on to say the right thing, lead the conversation, be the "magic Negro" that gently helps white folks become better people - but not ever in any way that makes them feel uncomfortable.

It is sickening and tiring. Jackie Robinson, indeed.

They are so true.

...because you in particular are refusing to take what we're saying about it at face value and are instead applying your own prejudices in ascribing other motives to us.

My post referred to "some white people" - the ones who do what I described. Do you fit that category? Sounds like you think you do.

and my edit was only a minor one - I simply added "and told to shut up because he's out of line" to the first paragraph. That's all.

So your claim still makes no sense, no matter how you try to mischaracterize it now.

...and found that that part was not the part that was edited. I apologize.

But your reply to me is actually funny: you seem to disclaim that you were talking about people like me, and then say that I sound like the type of person you were talking about.

If you want to use a word like "whenever" to describe someone's behavior, you should go on more than one incident. The fact of the matter is that he took a side in a disagreement where it was simply one person's word against the other's, when he has been chosen to represent the interests of both. I don't dislike him as a president for it. I agree with his statements about bias against African-American and Latino citizens because it's been studied and documented. I think it was unfair for him to imply the police officer had those motives when, again, it was simply one person's word against another. I think it was just a mistake and I think he realized it long before he admitted it was, but that's politics.

That's my opinion. If I pretended to agree with you because I thought you were incapable of seeing it in it's nuance, it would be patronizing and racist.

I distinctly referenced "some white folks (especially those in the media) LOVE to brag on the fact that we have a black president, as if it validates their own open-mindedness." If you are among the group of white folks who love to brag on the fact that we have a black president, as if it validates their own open-mindedness, then I was talking about you. If you are not, then I wasn't talking about you.

He also did not say or imply that the police officer had bad motives or that he was racially biased. In fact, he said that he didn't know enough about the case to say whether it involved race.

The President is a very articulate and eloquent man who speaks in full sentences and full paragraphs - this tends to lead to those who prefer to report and focus on quick soundbytes and paragraph fragments to mischaracterize his comments and thoughts since they often conflate and abridge his comments in ways that distort what he actually said. That is the case here. In order to fully understand what the president said, one has to consider the entire comment, not portions of it. When one does that, it is crystal clear what he said and what he meant.

LYNN SWEET: Recently Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge. What does that incident say to you and what does it say about race relations in America?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I should say at the outset that "Skip" Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house, there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place -- so far, so good, right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger into -- well, I guess this is my house now so -- (laughter) -- it probably wouldn't happen. But let's say my old house in Chicago -- (laughter) -- here I'd get shot. (Laughter.)

But so far, so good. They're reporting -- the police are doing what they should. There's a call, they go investigate what happens. My understanding is at that point Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in, I'm sure there's some exchange of words, but my understanding is, is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house. And at that point, he gets arrested for disorderly conduct -- charges which are later dropped.

Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that, but I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge Police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact.

As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in this society. That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made.

And yet the fact of the matter is, is that this still haunts us. And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently and oftentime for no cause casts suspicion even when there is good cause. And that's why I think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody is going to be.

Reading the ENTIRE comment makes a few things clear:
1) The President refrained from offering an opinion on whether race played a role in this case; 2) he pointed out that, notwithstanding the Cambridge incident, race is still a problem in this country - hardly a revolutionary concept; 3) he made a point of noting that, because racial profiling is a very real problem, it often casts suspicion on even in instances where there is good cause for an arrest.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with what the President said. He very calmly and intelligently laid out his observations of this situation and how it fits within the larger context. Unfortunately, the press and others chose not to consider the President's cogent comments, but instead opted to cherrypick portions of what he said to make it appear that he said something else altogether. THAT is the problem, not anything that came out of the President's mouth.

But the fact that he felt compelled to make the comment in the first place just shows that black / white relations are still a sensitive issue.

I'm white and yes I would love to say the problems between the races are in the past but I know there are too many cases of racism still remaining for this to be true. I do believe that many individual white people have overcome and discarded the old discriminatory attitudes but society as a whole still has a quite a ways to go.

I know that since I'm not black I can't have real insight into what African Americans experience, but I believe it when I hear people say that they have experienced discrimination. There may be times they are wrong but the fact that they are sometimes right keeps it a sensitive and troubling issue for us all.

anymore?

should take sides in an ongoing criminal investigation.

For Obama to do so was a major blunder, highlighting his political inexperience...

The charges had been dropped.

I'll bet most of the politicians in Washington - Democrat or Republican of whatever age - would LOVE to have President Obama's political chops, notwithstanding his "political inexperience."

He had the right to say what he said.

still, I'll stand by my statement that Obama showed some real political inexperience here, especially in light of his admission that he didn't know all the details.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Recently Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge. What does that incident say to you and what does it say about race relations in America?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I should say at the outset that "Skip" Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house, there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place -- so far, so good, right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger into -- well, I guess this is my house now so -- (laughter) -- it probably wouldn't happen. But let's say my old house in Chicago -- (laughter) -- here I'd get shot. (Laughter.)

But so far, so good. They're reporting -- the police are doing what they should. There's a call, they go investigate what happens. My understanding is at that point Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in, I'm sure there's some exchange of words, but my understanding is, is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house. And at that point, he gets arrested for disorderly conduct -- charges which are later dropped.

Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that, but I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge Police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact.

As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in this society. That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made.

And yet the fact of the matter is, is that this still haunts us. And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently and oftentime for no cause casts suspicion even when there is good cause. And that's why I think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody is going to be.

We have a President who speaks in full paragraphs - which can be a problem sometimes because it gives people plenty of snippets to cherrypick if they want to distort what he said. But when looked at in total, the President's comments were perfectly appropriate - and, contrary to the popular media meme, he did not say he didn't have the facts. He said he didn't have enough facts to say what role race played in the incident.

Nevertheless, folks chose to pull one word out of a 441-word answer and try to beat him into the ground with it. I think the fault lies with those who obsess over one word, not the man who uttered it in the midst of 440 other words.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You race traitor, you.

(again)

"didn't have enough facts to say what role race played in the incident", and then he turned it into a racial incident?

how was that a smart thing to do, even for a President who speaks in whole paragraphs?

comment that way, but he did no such thing.

Show me the quote where he admit he didn't know all the details. I'd love to see it. Thanks.

"Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts"

Since I posted the entire quote several times already, it was clearly a setup question.

"I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that . But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact."

Anyone being honest would see that he was referring to the role race played in the situation.

I really don't see your point.

you are making a distinction without a difference -

And I really don't care anymore. I'm tired of this bullshit. I'm tired of being insulted.

I've really got better things to do with my time

you keep saying Obama said something he never said. He's clearly referring to race and you keep chopping his quotes to make your argument. It's dishonest.

tells it like it is?

What if, upon reflection and examination of evidence, he sees that it's not "stupidly" done? What if, upon hearing more information, he can see that although not the best move, there might have been some justification to the arrest and that the situation hadn't been mishandled all the way down the line?

What if he's actually telling the truth as he sees it, and honorably admitting his rashness?

I'm sure he still thinks the arrest was stupid.

A bit presumptuous, don't you think?

I don't know what was in Gates' head, or Crowley's or Obama's. It's a nuanced situation.

When I heard Obama pull back, it sounded like he'd sincerely rethought the situation and realized he'd enflamed it by a rash choice of a word. Maybe he's just being politic. I don't know, but I don't see that this is "proof" that a black man as president simply can't say such things.

What if he actually means it? What if he read more and heard the respective interviews?

the truth to that segment of white America.

the work-a-day cop versus the jet-setting "you don't know who you're messin' with" superstar Harvard professor (as seen on PBS and Oprah.)

The one and only way Obama ever really gets himself into trouble is by ending up on the wrong side of class symbolism. It may be an exaggeration, but not much of one, to suggest that Gatesgate is this year's "bitter clingers." Of course bitter clingers caused no permanent damage to Obama, and I doubt this issue will either.

Anybody blind to that reality is deluded.

I don't care what status a person is they shouldn't be hauled out of their home for taking a "peculiar tone". Crap like this happens to the common soul everyday but it took it happening to someone with connections and resources to get any attention.

This misguided class argument is a desperate attempt to maintain an illusion and to, as always, strengthen the hand of the same folks with their boots on our collective necks. The classes are perp and cop. If you're not a cop then your a perp.

All of these cowardly, clueless, and anti-American defenders of systemic and deeply institutional abuse and racism make me want to puke my fucking guts out. Authoritarian suck asses, gutless and cowardly twerps, and bigots are tripping over their own feet to fumble over about 3,000 years of painstaking sacrifice and slow evolution to get to the lackluster ass place we hold onto now rather than hold the police accountable and of service to those to whom they swear to protect.

The incident was over. The officer had been shown that the man was who he said he was: the resident of the house. The officer left. The resident followed of his own free will, yelling (according to Figueroa) "this is what happens to black men in America!" and refused to be quiet when the officer asked him to. When warned that arrest was imminent if he didn't stop yelling, he continued and was arrested.

It was a crime, but it was the officer's discretion to arrest or not; perhaps he shouldn't have, but I wasn't there.

This man felt he hadn't been dealt with with the respect he deserved--whether he gave any or not--and by all accounts (except his own) he was accusing the officer of racism and continually yelling.

Regardless, there were no baying hounds, and he wasn't dragged from his house.

This was not a cut-and-dried situation, no matter how much one would like to portray it as such.

Cause this incident weeds out the who's from the what's.....

Quite eye opening!

Yes, the way to have a conversation about race is to ignore those with whom you disagree and call them racist.

If not, you're alerted, unrec-ed, and passive-aggressively labeled a racist with phrases like "I would never have imagined this would be allowed on a leftist board" or "you've shown what you are" or somesuch thing.

Goodbye, old friend. :hi:

The OP makes starkly painful truths about our MSM in particular and about too much of our society still, in general. Let us hope that eight more years of a new leadership under a man of strong character and great personal experience will increasingly teach our country something about race equality that will lift us all-- and cannot be lost or mitigated going forward ever again.

at the exact moment you trying to build excitement over one initiative, create a parallel story.

The fact of the matter is that no President can take sides on any controversial story and expect it not to slow down their ability to get things done. Certainly Obama has a harder time doing what he did because he's black and because he's a Democrat and therefore he's presumptively sympathetic toward Gates. Had a white Democratic President made the same statement it still would've been a big story because liberals are always presumed to be sympathetic toward minorities, but again probably not as big of a story as it was with Obama. Had it been a Republican President it would've been even less of a story because Republicans are presumed not to be especially sympathetic toward minorities and sympathetic toward law enforcement. Of course it still would've been a story because the GOP base would've been outraged even if their guy had said it.

Or for that matter any where. As commander and chief, he should respect all those in uniform who risk their lives to keep America safe. Whether the officer was right or wrong- Pres. Obama should not have demeaned this officer in public. He can say whatever he wants in private.

They arrested one of the most distinguished men in the world for no reason. They should be bowing in submission. Obama made a mistake wading in extemporaneouly. He is not good at keeping his foot out of his mouth. But it is Crowley who is culpable of giant misdeeds. Now it appears he lied on his officil report in addition to arresting an innocent man. Who would not be upset with multiple police on his front porch? I'd be in a state of shock and would certainly yell. However, it appears the professor had contacted something similar to laringitis on his trip to China, which unfortunately for Crowley's believablity precluded yelling.

after throughly studying all of these facts and taking the time to make sure you have considered all sides of this incident- you can honestly say without a doubt, that the only person in the wrong here was the officer in question. LOL

he rephrased his words because as President he realized his words may have been offensive to those in uniform who risk their lives daily. All Presidents should respect and support law and authority.