Less than a month ago President Obama used one adverb to truthfully describe the behavior of the police in the Gates issue. The entire right wing absolutely flipped out over it. It was all over every news station. There were people everywhere decrying it, police in the streets, posters even here caught up in that one word. Why? Because Obama is our first black President and all of America was watching to see if he would slip up in any way and reveal any part of his blackness in the matter that occured because of the system of racism most of us have all grown up in.
Yesterday a white man walked over to a black woman, pulled a picture of Rosa Parks out of her hands, and tore it up on film. And now we must silence and excuse. I'm not having any of that. I have spent two days now alarmed at the undertones of racism, doing my best to diary about how white people contribute to racism in this country in subtle ways. I've tried different approaches, but none could possibly work as well as what I've just heard Claire McCaskill say on national television.
You can see a video of the assault on Ms. Johnson and read discussion about it here:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Please watch the video before you read this transcript so that you can understand it properly. Note how Claire McCaskill reacts from the beginning to this: "Hey, hey, hey, OK, MAM."
I know, so what, you'll see why later:
Here is McCaskill's response to this, when questioned by Anderson Cooper tonight:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/...
Just to put this in context again.
Obama: One word off the cuff - total criticism for days on end, even here.
McCaskill: Comments full of whistles even this somewhat white girl can hear. I'm going to go through this play by play for you. You decide if you are going to stomach and excuse all of this, given the incident she is responding to.
First Cooper sets it up and McCaskill seems loathe to respond directly:
COOPER: I assume it's fair to say you have never seen this kind of level what you call rudeness of, I guess, anger in a public forum like this.
And I want to read you what Paul Krugman wrote. He said that what some are reacting to is more about the president, about President Obama than really about what is in these -- in these various health care plans.
And he said -- and I quote -- "The driving force behind the town hall mobs" -- his word -- "is probably the same cultural and racial anxiety that is behind the birther movement, which denies Mr. Obama's citizenship."
Does race play a role in this? There was a person at one of your town halls had a Rosa Parks poster. Apparently, a person angry in the crowd ripped it up. A scuffle ensued. They were all taken out.
Is race involved in this?
MCCASKILL: I -- I don't know.
I think there are certain folks in Missouri that don't trust government. And they haven't trusted government for a long time. And I think we have done a lot of big, bold things in the last six months. It's a time of uncertainty. People are confused. What is the difference between a stimulus and an omnibus and a TARP?
Did we just go from a Senator responding to a picture of Rosa Park being torn up to the Screamers are confused by stimulus, omnibus and TARP? Really? Just like that? She's asked whether an act could have racial undertones and she answers, "certain folks in Missouri that don't trust government." Why's that? Could it be a government that is now run by a black man that makes her answer like this? She continues:
And I think all of that rolled up, in addition to having a new president that -- that they did not support, I think, has led to a heightened sense of passion and fervor.
OK, there it is, the problem is the President and that has led to "passion and fervor" not "rudeness and law-breaking" at all. It's Obama's fault.
Next:
But I think it's all within the confines of our democracy. And we may be exercising our muscles of democracy in Missouri, but that's OK. That's what this is all about is people being able to express their opinions.
"..exercising our muscles of democracy in Missouri.." Is this woman even aware of what she is talking about anymore? Why would she use this to describe an assault?
COOPER: Congressman David Scott of Georgia, an African-American man, says that racism is involved, that -- that it's sort of the subtext of this debate. Just, for the record, do you see any indication of that?
MCCASKILL: I don't. I think that is irresponsible to say, also.
Now I have to take a time-out here. McCaskill is responding to this. This is what she is calling "irresponsible":
As a Democrat Scott had to confront people angry over possible changes to health care at a town hall meeting. Scott is also African American and his office has received faxes with racial slurs which he’s turned over to the FBI.
And this week a swastika was spray painted over his name at his suburban Atlanta district office. Scott blames conservative talk radio for injecting race into the health care debate.
"When you look at Rush Limbaugh saying 'hey we want Obama to fail' what do you think it means to them," Scott asks.
He charges that Limbaugh and the Republican opposition are using the American people.
"And they're pricking their conscience with their racism," he says. "That's so much there with us and they know how to do it."
Scott says in his 7 years in Congress he’s never gotten this high a level of racial threats.
http://www.gpb.org/...
What is wrong with that black man, irresponsibly responding to receiving racial slurs on his fax machine and having a swastika painted on his sign....receiving all of those threats and reporting them as he has. Totally irresponsible.
But those Screamers? Not so much.
I -- I -- there may be an individual instances of that, but there are a whole lot of people who are frustrated, and cynical, and angry, and I'm not sure that it -- it would be accurate to make that about race.
Yeah, irresponsible black man has gotten overly upset over just individual instances of "that" (Can she say the words?) But it is certainly not accurate to make that about race. Because that's what the irresponsible black man is doing, not the people making the threats or vandalizing his property.
The disagreement yesterday was more because somebody broke the rules and brought in a sign, when nobody else was allowed to bring in a sign, and they were flaunting it. And it angered people, and -- and passions got out of control.
Got that? Somebody broke a rule and brought in a sign and that was what this was about. That was the reason an adult white male assaulted a black female. The actions of the black woman "angered" people and "passions" got out of control. Because that's what we call an assault, we call it "passion."
There was certainly a little bit of wrongdoing on the part of the women who had the sign, because they knew they weren't supposed to have them. And there was certainly wrongdoing on the part of the gentlemen who ripped it out of her hand.
Let's put aside for a moment how freaking ridiculous it is for this woman to talk about this situation like she's the principal in an elementary school for a moment, and even that she has just once again ascribed blame to a person that deserves an apology for everything that happened to her. Let's put aside that the man was arrested for assault and she's not even acknowledging it.
Let's just look at some nouns here: Who did the wrongdoing? The "women who weren't supposed to have them", mentioned first, and then, "certainly wrongdoing on the part of the gentleman who ripped it out of her hand"
For those of you who still can't see it, the dog-whistle is in bold there.
Cooper tries again:
COOPER: So, on your -- for -- your take is, no indication of the fact that it was Rosa Parks on the poster?
MCCASKILL: Oh, no.
Now I ask you, why wouldn't she be interested here in acknowledging what it means to Ms. Johnson, or black people, even white people, even us bloggers making a hoopla about it, by saying simply, "I can see how it would seem that way," or "It was horrible that a poster of Rosa Parks, a Civil Rights hero was destroyed." But does she do that? Oh. no.
It was like Cooper couldn't believe this to because he pressed again:
COOPER: It was the presence of the poster?
MCCASKILL: Oh, no. I'm not even sure -- I don't think that had anything to do with what was on the poster. It had to do with everyone -- we had, you know, 2,500 people there, and they all were instructed with great big signage, you can't bring signs in.
Now it's the size of the crowd, and plus a sign told this black woman not to do the very bad thing (that the security guards didn't have a problem with, as she walked in and sat down with the poster in plain view.) You see it was all about everything but what that white guy did in almost all of her description here...the sun was in my eyes...etc.
And, then, at the very end of the meeting, in walked these women with signs unfurled. And, of course, it agitated the crowd.
Yes, that one rule-breaking rolled-up sign woman, she agitated the crowd. You viewed the video. You decide. My take is even if the woman came in waving the poster over her head and playing a kazoo she was comfortably in her seat and the trouble came from the troublemaker, the one white guy. Notice what is absent in her entire depiction though, besides the fact that the white "gentleman" gets very little attention for getting arrested and assaulting the black woman. Notice there is no discussion whatsoever about the way the crowd behaved. I guess they were all just following the rules. Not breaking that sign-very-bad-thing. Just being fine upstanding citizens as they shouted her down on their feet, booed her and screamed at her.
COOPER: I'm glad you pointed that out, because that is...
MCCASKILL: Yes.
COOPER: ... certainly something that is being played on liberal blogs, that it was a Rosa Parks poster and that there was significance in that. You see no significance.
MCCASKILL: I don't think that was the problem. I think the problem was, somebody violated the rules about bringing in signs, and it made somebody angry. And things got a little out of control.
A little out of control? No significance to the poster of Rosa Park, not even a mention of the fact that it was torn up, not even a mention of an act that shouldn't have happened on the merits of the wrongness of grabbing someones property and destroying it (if you don't want to "go there" with the racist angle.).. She doesn't even acknowledge it can be significant to anyone else. Somebody violated a rule as the mob screamed on their feet and a woman was assaulted, and it was the victim of the assault that "made somebody" (that gentleman) angry. And it wasn't even him that got " a little out of control," it was "things."
And then she goes out like this:
But we went for two hours, and there was just -- just that little incident. There was some rudeness, but, by and large, we got through it and we were able to exchange a lot of ideas. And I think it was terrific.COOPER: Senator McCaskill, I appreciate your time. Thank you.
MCCASKILL: OK. Thank you.
Got that all? Total understatement on all counts about what went on there. There were no screaming people. There was no assault. It didn't matter that a poster of Rosa Parks got torn up or that a white "gentleman" was arrested for assaulting that very bad sign-rule breaking black woman that made him angry. Claire McCaskill thinks it was terrific.
Once again, Obama: "police acted stupidly"
Two weeks of news coverage
Countless diaries here, massive criticism and flaming, "Why would
he SAY that and IGNITE things?"
Claire McCaskill: All of the above.
I will not excuse this.
UPDATED:
Although this is about racism and the ways McCaskill's response supported the Screaming racists, there was more to this interview. She also subtley excused Grassley for his outright fear-mongering for the Deathers by insinuating he'd confused himself with "too much information." Check it out:
COOPER: I want to get your take on what Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa said. He essentially is supporting what Governor -- former Governor Palin said about these death penalties.
MCCASKILL: Well, the irony is, is that his colleague, Republican Senator Isakson from Georgia, actually wrote the provision that went in the Senate bill.
And it is about an end-of-life directive, and so the patient and their family are in charge. It has nothing to do with the government having any control. It's the opposite. It's about the government reimbursing doctors for taking the time to explain the different procedures, to help with any kind of directive, not to take over.
So, it's so ironic that Senator Grassley has got that part confused, because it's his fellow Republicans from Georgia who put it in the bill on the Senate side.
COOPER: Do you think he really is confused, or -- or is something else at work here?
MCCASKILL: I -- I -- you know, listen, I think that there are many provisions of this bill, and I think everyone needs to slow down and take time to study it carefully, because, if you do, so much of the misinformation goes away. And this is a big, giant piece of misinformation.
Anyone else care to use the word "confused" to describe Grassley's whack-a-dutitute?
How far will McCaskill go to protect the worst idealogues in her constituency?