Reid’s Makaka Moment

According to a new book entitled “Game Changer,” which looks at the inside story the historic 2008 campaign, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that the country would be ready to embrace then candidate Barack Obama as he was a “light-skinned African American with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one…”

With Reid’s apology, I don’t see anything racist about his comments.  Those words were inappropriate at worst but not racist at all.  Now Republicans accuse Democrats of having a double standard.  That is when a Democrat uses these kind of words, then he gets forgiven but if a Republican finds himself in the same situation, they will make him regret it.  They made a comparison between Reid and another former Majority Leader, Trent Lott (R-MS).

Lott had to relinquish his position after he made a comment that Strom Thurmond would have been the best president of the United States during his time.  Thurmond ran on a segregationist platform.

Comparing what Reid and Lott said, Reid’s comments, as inappropriate as they were, were nowhere near the connotation of Lott’s statement.  Reid was just saying Obama would be accepted by the voting public.  Lott was directly or indirectly embracing Thurmond’s segregationist ideals.

While it is nothing near being racist, this kind of publicity is perhaps the last thing Reid wants in what would be his toughest re-election battle yet.  Racist remarks can sink a candidate’s campaign, including those supposed to be shoo-ins, like what it did to George Allen.

Cutting Lieberman Some Slack

Perhaps one person who has the one of the biggest stakes in this campaign is Joe Lieberman.  When he entered the senate he was a Democrat and stayed a Democrat in name at least until 2006.  He may have voted with Democrats almost all the time except for those few issues that mattered like Iraq.

In 2006, his staunch support for the Iraq war cost him the Democratic nomination which was given to Ned Lamont.  Lieberman ran as in independent and won.  He promised to caucus with the Democrats.  In the 2008 election cycle, he supported John McCain and was a key speaker at the GOP Convention in St. Paul.  As a result of this, Democrats want Lieberman to be punished by being stripped of key committees.  I belive that it wasn’t Lieberman’s support of McCain that angered them as was his criticism of Barack Obama 

To Democrats: who was the person that enabled you to get a majority?  Who was the person that enabled Harry Reid to be the majority leader?  Who was the person that gave you the leadership committees in the Senate? It was Joe Lieberman.  Your majority leader Harry Reid even suggests that Joe even votes more with the party than some of you. 

I don’t think he should be punished merely for supporting the othey guy.  If this was the case then punish Zel Miller, punish the Reagan democrats even punish democrats who supported President Bush’s $700B rescue package.  

Democrats, I know you don’t want the Iraq war but Lieberman is more than just that.  You’ve got to look beyond this single issue which frankly wasn’t even number one, not even close.  Your new president-elect said that he wants to earn the support of those who didn’t vote for him and Lieberman even promises to work with Barack Obama.  You may have the numbers but Lieberman should still have some influence. 

A reality check: republicans will welcome him but sources say that beyond Iraq, there isn’t much that they have in common.  If you want to boot him out let the voters decide in 4 years time.     

Are you going to boot him out of your causes just because of this single issue?  Think about it.  For better or worse, you still have a remote shot at getting a 60-seat majority, would you want to throw him under the bus and regret it later?