Comments

1. Hana wrote:

   There was a pretty big scandal in the sports world when an announcer talked about lynching Tiger Woods not too long ago… what is it with people using this word? I hope Bill-O faces the same scrutiny that that other (lady) announcer did, although she seemed genuinely horrified by what she said and I doubt Bill-O even could.

   Posted 25 Feb 2008 at 9:01 am ¶

2. dsf wrote:

   Nothing will happen to O’Reilly. The use of the word ‘lynch’ as a metaphor precedes even the Civil War. More relevant, however, is that O’Reilly and Fox News thrive on just this type of publicity. Also, this incident will be seen as mild once the convention is over and the right-wing and the centrists start in on Obama for real.

   Posted 25 Feb 2008 at 9:53 am ¶

3. tasha wrote:

   So, the reason why the press is on Michelle’s case about her “patriotism” remark is because she’s black? I don’t agree. I think this latest brouhaha over what Michelle said isn’t a case of stereotyping Michelle as an “angry, black woman”. Maybe in the beginning, in the early stages of Barack’s candidacy, when Michelle was talking about how, while Barack may be all the rage in Washington, he isn’t special at home; he’s expected to take out the trash, kill ants, etc., etc. You know, that whole “He aint shit/ Honeymooners” routine. I thought that in her attempt to humanize her husband that she was being painted with that stereotypical “angry black woman” brush. Lately though, as I’ve seen the campaign unfold, the more I think the reaction to her controversial remarks has less to do with race and more to do with sexism, being a public figure, and just a real lack of savvy on Michelle’s part. You don’t see Barack shooting off at the mouth the way his wife does. He reads from a teleprompter and rehearses his rhetoric, a good deal of which isn’t even his own :).

   I’m curious, Tami, when Teresa Heinz Kerry was being criticized over her “off the cuff” remarks, so called “ethnic” looking scarves, accent, and feisty stump persona, did you suspect that race played a role? How about the merciless lampooning and criticism that Hillary endured as the outspoken wife of candidate Bill and later as first lady? Was that racial too? Well, Michelle Obama is not the first lawyer/outspoken DNC Presidential candidate’s wife to stump for her husband or get accused of “having an attitude”. She’s also not the first candidate’s wife to get negative press coverage, have remarks taken out of context, or be overly scrutinized for something she said in public. The truth is that the press is paying more and more attention to spouses these days, especially those that are considered untraditional or really opinionated, and Michelle Obama is often good for a sound bite. What about the field day the press had in 92’when Hillary said that she “could’ve stayed home and baked cookies,” or last year when Elizabeth Edwards said that she “Couldn’t make John black or a woman”? There’s nothing novel or exceptional about what’s happening to Michelle. Wives of politicians that are considered unconventional or outspoken have been catching hell in the press and public opinion way before Obama. Michelle is just the latest victim of this type of scrutiny, who just happens to be black. I definitely see pulling the race card out for O’Reilly, because regardless of whether or not he meant anything by it, the term lynch has a loaded history, especially when applied to blacks. O’Reilly should have never used that word in reference to Michelle and should be dealt with accordingly. The way I see it, if Michelle or her supporters have a problem with how her remarks are spun in the press, she has three options, just like any other woman in her position, regardless of race. She can continue doing what she’s doing and change nothing. She can watch her mouth, or she can sit down and be quiet.

   Posted 25 Feb 2008 at 12:18 pm ¶

4. Wendi Muse wrote:

   hmmm where is gloria steinem when you need her?

   Posted 25 Feb 2008 at 12:31 pm ¶

5. simcha wrote:

   I called a few of my friends on this issue some time ago. The maneuvering of this election and the orbiting punditocracy, especially blowhards like O’Reilly, is completely nauseating at times. I know Mrs. Obama is a grown woman who clearly can take care of herself, but these kinds of sly attacks make me want to take *off* my earrings and get a jar of Vaseline. (If y’all don’t know what I mean by this, I’m sure you can find an urban dictionary reference.)

   I guess I’m one of those people who wants to see just how ugly things can get before November, because as far as I’m concerned, the U.S. is badly in need of an reality enema. While I don’t want polarizing issues to jeopardize Sen. Obama’s campaign, but, frankly, I’m tired of the “surprise” people register when these types of comments happen. It goes to show you, like Tami sez, “You cain’t win…” (Cue musical crows.) I myself have endured others’ attempts to paint me with the so-called black female “attitudinal” patina my entire life, especially when I’ve called people in the workplace, at school and elsewhere on their sh*t.

   I understand how desperately people want to “get past” our history, but a black president and first lady aren’t a “get out of jail free” card. We must continue the hard work of exposing racism, sexism and classism in this country to make it even better. How ironic is it that in this year commemorating Dr. King’s assassination, the violence at the Chicago Democratic convention, and the continuation of urban riots that damn near tore apart the country, that we still have individuals in the public arena, including O’Reilly, who like to play snarky rhetorical games with deadly serious issues. That privilege hard-on must feel real good in the morning.

   Harumph. You thinks the cranks are coming out of their mud holes now. Wait until the nominations are solidified.

   Posted 25 Feb 2008 at 3:21 pm ¶

6. G.K. wrote:

   To Tasha: Hmmm—-I haven’t heard what Mrs. Obama said, but she has the right to “shoot off her mouth” because it’s a free country. I don’t call merely making a statement about something “shooting off your mouth”. She’ll have to be schooled real quick on how to be media-savvy and watch carefully what she says next time, unfortunately,since she’s in the spotlight. And it’s already been proved that Obama borrowed some of his speech from the new mayor of Boston–who gave him permission to use those same words. I also thought Teresa Heintz Kerry was cool—the press didn’t like her only because she didn’t feel the need to kiss their a** and let them dictate her life. I remember when Hilary got dissed back in the day for her remarks—of course people took it all out of context and thought that she was dissing stay-at-home mothers, which she wasn’t—she was just saying that she was strong and independent and wasn’t gonna let nothing get over on her–not even Bill’s crazy a**.

   It’s sad that Americans can’t handle a First Lady with a mind of her own—ones that just stay quiet, non-controversial, and behind the scenes like Laura Bush get more props. That sucks big-time.

   Posted 25 Feb 2008 at 8:20 pm ¶

7. Tami wrote:

   Tasha,

   Yes, all potential first ladies face a lot of criticism, especially ones who aren’t willing to sit meekly beside their husbands with a Stepfordesque look of adoration painted on their faces. Clinton and Heinz Kerry took heat for being strong women with brains.

   What I refer to is something else. I have repeatedly, in a variety of places other than on Bill O’Reilly’s show, heard Michelle Obama called “angry,” “militant,” and accused of having “an attitude.” Those loaded words are ones often associated with black women specifically, and I have not heard them used against other spouses of candidates. That Michelle Obama might face a special kind of sexism as a black woman does not negate the existence of sexism against white women or other women of color. Sexists are equal opportunity like that.

   Posted 25 Feb 2008 at 8:57 pm ¶

8. Paul wrote:

   On a related topic, how does nobody post about NBC’s use of blackface in the portrayal of Obama on SNL? It’s almost as egregious as the lynching comment yet no one sees a reason to post. The minstrel show was a key element in the dehumanization of blacks in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. We need to stand up and call out punks who use blackface and ask why there’s only one black man on SNL.

   Posted 25 Feb 2008 at 9:26 pm ¶

9. Orville wrote:

   I think Michelle Obama is entitled to her opinions and this just another pathetic attempt by the Republicans to attack Mrs. Obama. Mrs. Obama is a strong and intelligent black woman she won’t allow those Republican dingbats to stop her from speaking her truth. I also think it is abhorrent that creep O’Reilly is trying to tell a black woman what to think or believe. Mrs. Obama has her own views and she’s entitled tot hem.

   Posted 26 Feb 2008 at 12:35 am ¶

10. tasha wrote:

    @ G.K.

    No one said that Michelle Obama couldn’t say whatever she wanted. In fact, I mention that in my list of options that Michelle has if she finds the media scrutiny to be problematic. (Say what she wants to and change nothing. Watch her mouth, or sit down and be quiet). And it really is that simple, cause guess what? Michelle isn’t the one up for elective office, now is she? Isn’t that what they used to tell Hillary? This isn’t the first controversial sound bite that Michelle Obama has given to the press. In my last post I mentioned the whole “Honeymooners” bit she used to do in the early stages of Obama’s campaign. Remember the whole, “If you can’t run your own house. You certainly can’t run the white house?”quip, or what about that piece on Good Morning America where, when Michelle was asked about whether or not she would support Hillary if her husband was defeated, she alluded to having to think about it because of Hillary’s policies, approach and TONE?

    @ Tami

    What you perceive in terms of Michelle being subjected to a “special kind of sexism” and what’s actually occurring may be two different things entirely. What’s noticeably missing from your post is the notion of Michelle inviting criticism with her remarks. You don’t even entertain that possibility. Instead, you imply that Michelle is a target simply because she’s black, female (highly educated, professional) and outspoken, or maybe you think there shouldn’t be consequences for her missteps because she’s black. I don’t know, but imagine if the shoe were on the other foot, and Hillary was the spouse and Michelle the Presidential candidate, and during a television interview, Hillary suggests that she doesn’t like Michelle’s “tone.” Then all the usual suspects would be coming out of the woodwork, talking about “sly attacks” (See comment #5) and how racist the “tone” remark was because of its stereotypical implications of Michelle as an “angry black female.”

    Condi Rice is also a statuesque, high profile black woman in the public eye, and she frequently discusses matters far more substantive than Michelle’s stump routine, yet despite the Bush administration’s approval rating, people, the media, whatever, do not tend to refer to Rice as “angry” or “having an attitude”. Is it because Rice is “Stepfordesque”? No, that can’t be it because Rice isn’t even a spouse. With the exception of the war, the mainstream media (MSM, which is mostly liberal) struggles to find bad things about Rice. Why do you think that is? Could it be because Rice is more adept at making comments in the press than Michelle Obama? Howard Dean’s wife, Judith, a medical doctor, and perhaps the most untraditional Presidential candidate’s wife of them all, almost managed to evade the media all together. The MSM could only scrutinize Judith’s actions, in terms of her not abandoning her career to stump for her husband, full time. Why do you think that was? Could it have been because Judith wasn’t giving the press much fodder in terms making catty or clumsy remarks in interviews and campaign events?

    Posted 26 Feb 2008 at 9:57 am ¶

11. Lauren O wrote:

    I’m not sure it’s right to draw a parallel between that “pimping” comment and this “lynching” comment. Both are disgusting, and anyone who makes comments like either of those should be punished.

    But I don’t think it’s that sexism is a punishable crime in our society, while racism is not.

    I think the problem is that rich white men can get away with making such abhorrent comments, while people who aren’t rich, white, or male can’t. That golf announcer mentioned above made a joke about lynching, and she was (rightfully) punished. When Bill O’Reilly makes an even more offensive comment, he isn’t punished. Why can he get away with it, but a woman can’t?

    It’s not because racism is more acceptable than sexism. It’s because a racist, patriarchal society gives white men enough power to get off the hook for saying horrible things like that.

    Posted 26 Feb 2008 at 11:52 pm ¶

12. Skeptic wrote:

    I don’t get what is wrong with saying for the first time I am proud of my country, followed by it feels like hope….

    I don’t get what is the big fuss is about.

    Posted 27 Feb 2008 at 1:07 am ¶

13. Lisa wrote:

    I admire, respect and like Ms. Obama, and think O’Reilly should totally get lynched, er, fired for that remark.

    On the other hand, I cringe at her making his and other conservatives’ jobs easier by serving distortable remarks like that to them on a silver platter.

    The right-wing attack dogs will invent or distort plenty of horrible things about the Democratic nominee, no need to give them easy fodder. Unfortunately - what a joy is a frank, honest person in politics! - she will have to be cautious in the upcoming months.

    Posted 27 Feb 2008 at 6:07 am ¶

14. Michelle wrote:

    I think that chile, she can’t win. If she shuts up completely, the “others” will jump all over that! “See, they know that they have to put a muzzle on her, what if she gets in the White House!” And I believe in my heart of hearts, no matter what she says from here on out, the “others” will distort EVERYTHING she says.

    Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 3:43 am ¶

15. tasha wrote:

    Yeah, it be’s that way sometimes.

    You know, I remember in elementary school when Bill first ran, how it was almost chic to pillory Hillary. For example, the SNL domestic violence sketch where Phil Hartman played Bill Clinton as a battered spouse being abused by Hillary. Before we moved back down South, I used to listen to Ed, Lisa, and Dre on Hot 97 before school in the morning, and they used to do this running hip-hop segment called “Naked Under My Clothes.” I remember part 9 of the series where Dre’s rhyming about how he was chatting with Bill in the men’s room, “pondering the mysteries of life, “ which was then followed by “. . .and I can’t stand his wife.” And everyone was laughing. Let the media take some digs at Michelle Obama, over things she’s said in the press, and all of a sudden, it’s a racist atrocity.

    Posted 28 Feb 2008 at 1:32 pm ¶

16. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    I really don’t like O’Reilly at all, but I’m not seeing the problem with this. Here’s what seems to have happened:

    1. O’Reilly observes how people have been treating Michele Obama.
    2. He doesn’t like it.
    3. It reminds him of some aspects of lynching.
    4. He says he doesn’t want to do it and uses the word ‘lynching’.

    Is the complaint that it’s always wrong to compare people’s treatment a black person to lynching? Aren’t there ways in which the way white people treat black people really can be like lynching, even if it’s not as extreme? It’s different to compare Chelsea Clinton with a prostitute by saying someone is pimping her out. That reflects on her. O’Reilly simply said he wouldn’t join the lynch mob, which if anything reflects badly on the (mostly) white people who are complaining about what she said. He seems to be distancing himself from that, and the way this post and most of the comments read it’s as if he’s the one saying all the things he’s criticizing.

    Posted 01 Mar 2008 at 10:42 pm ¶

Post a Comment