Green Room

WaPo’s Richard Cohen Shows His Bias And His True (Racist) Colors In Palin Hit Piece

posted at 9:00 am on November 24, 2010 by

Originally posted at NewsReal:


These days, the biased leftist slant of the media is more apparent than it has ever been. They are spinning madly, increasingly frantic with fear of those super scary Tea Partiers and oh-so-terrifying conservatives. And when you add Sarah Palin and race-based identity politics into the mix, it becomes a perfect storm of unabashed — and unbalanced — leftist water carrying.

The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen is the latest to exhibit just how unglued the Left and the media, being concentric circles on a Venn diagram, natch, have become. Newsbusters points out that in the article titled “Attack on Michelle Obama shows Palin’s ignorance of history,” Cohen comes to the inane, and typically leftist, conclusion that Sarah Palin “could not be the president of black America nor of Hispanic America.”  Um. Sure, I’m no swanky-pants Washington Post columnist, nor do I even have the vast experience of a community organizer from which to draw, but I’m fairly certain that the presidency isn’t segregated.

Can’t let pesky facts stand in the way of a hit piece, though, can he? How does Cohen form his brilliant – and sure-fire entre into a good cocktail party this weekend – hypothesis? Because Sarah Palin dares to mention the following in her new book:

In her new book, she reportedly takes Michelle Obama to task for her supposedly infamous remark from the 2008 campaign: “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.” [...]

Huh. Again, I’m no expert, but it seems to me that Michelle Obama actually did say that. So, by “taking her to task,” he of course means smearing with, you know, the truth. Oh, that wing-nutty Palin! Telling the truth and all. That’s so reactionary and old school! I suppose they don’t like that whole “Truth to Power” thing turned around on them. The book snippet to which he refers is as follows:

Certainly his wife expressed this view when she said during the 2008 campaign that she had never felt proud of her country until her husband started winning elections. In retrospect, I guess this shouldn’t surprise us, since both of them spent almost two decades in the pews of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church listening to his rants against America and white people.

Cohen isn’t alone in his delusions. The Huffington Post called that passage “racially charged.” Why? Because the Left, in their stompy foot temper tantrums, are letting their true colors show. And they are racist ones.  It is the Left who only sees color. It is the Left who paints people into identity politics laden boxes only, in order to further their own end. They use people as a means to that end, with no regard to the harm it causes. This is evidenced further by Cohen, who after predictably bringing up slavery, went on to grossly say this:

Sarah Palin teases that she might run for president. But she is unqualified – not just in the (let me count the) usual ways, but because she does not know the country. She could not be the president of black America nor of Hispanic America. She knows more about grizzlies than she does about African Americans – and she clearly has more interest in the former than the latter. Did she once just pick up the phone and ask Michelle Obama what she meant by her remark? Did she ask about her background? What it was like at Princeton? What it was like for her parents or her grandparents? I can offer a hint. If they were driving to Washington, they slowed down and stopped where the sign said “colored” – and the irritated Palins of the time angrily hit the horn and went on their way.

Not only vile, but wrong. It is the Left who are still enslaving. They require people, particularly women and minorities, to walk and think in lockstep. It is people like Barbara Boxer, not Sarah Palin, who have no interest in African-Americans and what they think. Barbara Boxer doesn’t even realize that people have minds of their own. In a new version of the odious “y’all look alike’ bigotry, Barbara Boxer holds  the disgusting belief that all people in the Left’s little boxed up identity groups must all think the same way.  All “you people”  think the same, you see. It was Harry Reid, not Sarah Palin, who condescending sneered “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican.”

The Smarter Than Us ™ Left, including their media lackeys, doesn’t believe in Post-Racial anything. In fact, quite the opposite: Their bread and butter is identity politics. In order to maintain power, they absolutely must put everyone in victim boxes and attempt to pit people against one and another. This worked to great effect in the past, with the media’s complicity. It’s far past time we put an end to it.  While I expect the vitriol and animus spewed at Sarah Palin to get even worse, unbelievable as that is, the media’s cover has been blown. The media has been, and will continue to be, exposed due in part to the hateful and delusional rantings of the likes of Richard Cohen.

To be fair, Richard Cohen, you are right in one regard. Sarah Palin couldn’t be president of black America. Because that isn’t, you know, a country. Contrary to your desires, and to John Edwards’ ridiculous Two Americas spiel, we are one nation. You, sir, are the one who is ignorant of history. First grade history, no less.

We don’t have segregated presidencies. Nor should we. The very idea is racist in and of itself. What we do have are presidents of the United States of America.

—–

Crossposted from NewsReal

Follow Lori  on Twitter and read more of her stuff  at Snark and Boobs, Big Journalism, Human Events and  Red State.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

It’s twofer, the progressives and their media. Is there anyone but the handout crowd that doesn’t know?

Both with one election.

tarpon on November 24, 2010 at 9:22 AM

It is the Left who paints people into identity politics laden boxes only, in order to further their own end.

Racism is just an ugly form of collectivism.

Yes, Cohen made a mockery of himself this time, if that’s possible.

petefrt on November 24, 2010 at 9:29 AM

Certainly his wife expressed this view when she said during the 2008 campaign that she had never felt proud of her country until her husband started winning elections. In retrospect, I guess this shouldn’t surprise us, since both of them spent almost two decades in the pews of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church listening to his rants against America and white people.

This bares endless repeating. The fact that one of Obama’s mentors is an unrepentant racist should disqualify him for public office by the standards the left professes.

18-1 on November 24, 2010 at 1:03 PM

I’ve never understood the liberal mentality of calling others what they themselves are.

Misery loves company maybe?

scotash on November 24, 2010 at 4:02 PM

Hispanic America. She knows more about grizzlies than she does about African Americans

Oh so this is what it takes to be Prez? Thanks for telling me, I did not know. The gall of her, not knowing all their is to know about blacks and Latinos. Off with her head!!!

jeanie on November 24, 2010 at 5:49 PM

This post is just flat awful.

It’s far worse than Richard Cohen’s article in that it’s every bit as biased and, instead of addressing the substance of Cohen’s explanation of Michelle Obams’s remark, it simply lashes together a big bunch of stupidly and ignorantly assembled name calling at the Left, Cohen, and the media in general.

Palin’s attack at Michelle Obama’s remark is shallow and simplistic, but at least you can be sure that Palin intends it to be just that. While Palin might be capable of a larger understanding of what Obama meant; short, simple, and sharp is what she wants and all she’s capable of successfully pulling off. An intelligent exchange isn’t in Palin’s interest.

Ziganto also avoids attempting any intelligent refutation of Cohen’s article (and refuting it wouldn’t be all that difficult) and just flings insults at the left, Cohen, and the biased media.

Dumb.

audiculous on November 24, 2010 at 9:45 PM

The truth hurts.

Cylor on November 25, 2010 at 3:02 AM

Why isn’t the comparison to grizzlies and African-Americans seen as racist?

She knows more about grizzlies than she does about African Americans – and she clearly has more interest in the former than the latter.

Surely Cohen doesn’t think that African Americans are some wild herd of animals out in the wilderness. Does he? He speaks as though African Americans aren’t ‘like’ regular people.

WE can play the racist game too. However, WE choose not to.

libertylady on November 25, 2010 at 8:22 AM

Cylor

The truth hurts.

but flinging around a bunch of labels doesn’t hurt. it stinks.

audiculous on November 25, 2010 at 10:10 AM

Surely Cohen doesn’t think that African Americans are some wild herd of animals out in the wilderness. Does he?

libertylady on November 25, 2010 at 8:22 AM

Perhaps he grew up in a neighborhood where he experienced the ‘benefits’ of ‘diversity’, and this is just his roundabout way of taking a potshot at a liberal cornerstone.

Dark-Star on November 25, 2010 at 12:10 PM

but flinging around a bunch of labels doesn’t hurt. it stinks.

audiculous on November 25, 2010

at 10:10 AM

Don’t be so hard on yourself, champ.

Inanemergencydial on November 26, 2010 at 1:28 AM

Did she once just pick up the phone and ask Michelle Obama what she meant by her remark?

Did you, Mr. Cohen? Or anyone in the press?

I didn’t think so.

F***ing hypocrite.

UltimateBob on November 26, 2010 at 3:09 AM

Don’t be so hard on yourself, champ.

Inanemergencydial

Sorry, bud, but if I wrote the type of idiotic post that Ziganto has written or the ill thought-out one that Cohen has, I would want people to be hard on it.

Left, right or center, dumb is dumb.

audiculous on November 26, 2010 at 10:44 AM

Sorry, bud, but if I wrote the type of idiotic post that Ziganto has written or the ill thought-out one that Cohen has, I would want people to be hard on it.
Left, right or center, dumb is dumb.

audiculous on November 26, 2010 at 10:44 AM

As long as you are dictating what to be hard on…about.

Inanemergencydial on November 26, 2010 at 11:47 PM

Inanemergencydial

longer.

audiculous on November 27, 2010 at 6:41 AM

Sorry, bud, but if I wrote the type of idiotic post that Ziganto has written …

audiculous on November 26, 2010 at 10:44 AM

Simply calling something “idiotic” doesn’t make it so. Didn’t you give a sermonette about labels earlier?

ddrintn on November 27, 2010 at 11:42 PM

ddrintn

yes, and in the sermon I said why I thought Ziganto’s post to be idiotic. I didn’t think that I should, or needed to, repeat the reasoning.

audiculous on November 28, 2010 at 11:56 AM

instead of addressing the substance of Cohen’s explanation of Michelle Obams’s remark

OK, what is that substance?

Palin’s attack at Michelle Obama’s remark is shallow

Doesn’t attending the Rev. Wright’s church explain a great deal of Michelle’s feelings about the country?

AshleyTKing on November 28, 2010 at 4:14 PM

AshleyTKing, the substance of Michelle’s remark is that she hasn’t much liked the direction that government assumed beginning with the election of Reagan.
Cohen focused on the racial aspect, as Cohen is a pretty obvious guy, but that’s Cohen’s shortfall.

Doesn’t attending the Rev. Wright’s church explain a great deal of Michelle’s feelings about the country?

No Ashley, it doesn’t expalin a darn thing. Rev. Wright’s sermons are a product of his mind, not anyone else’s.

I tend to think that Michelle Obama’s remark means that she was feeling good that the success of her husband meant that the country was going to shift back to the left and reverse the trend that started with the Reagan years, which would mark the beginning of her adult years.
Palin is playing a little cheap by harping on the single word “proud” and trying to use it to cast doubt on Obama’s patriotism.
Confusing someone’s political leanings with their patriotism is shallow.

Palin, in my view, is mostly ignorant and her political positions are not well thought out or any more likely to work well for this country than the shallow stuff coming from the far left, but disagreeing with her doesn’t lead me to think that she’s not loyal to the country, even if i think that she, in high office, would be a disaster.

audiculous on November 28, 2010 at 10:16 PM

the substance of Michelle’s remark is that she hasn’t much liked the direction that government assumed beginning with the election of Reagan.

That’s not what she said. That’s what you want people to think she meant, but that’s no where near what she said.

This statement:

Palin, in my view, is mostly ignorant and her political positions are not well thought out or any more likely to work well for this country than the shallow stuff coming from the far left

betrays you and delivers the reasoning behind which you would purposefully give such an intellectually dishonest interpretation of what M. Obama said.

Jason Coleman on November 29, 2010 at 10:37 AM

dear Jason, perhaps you listened to a different clip of a different speech.

But I heard what she said, and I hope, clearly stated that I was guessing at what she meant and not what she said.

Just as everybody else, including Sarah Palin, I am trying to get at what Obama meant.

Now if you can show how my interpretation can’t follow from the words, please demonstrate that, but saying that my interpretation is wrong because I don’t like the idea of Palin in office is not really demonstrating anything.

it’s not like disagreeing with Palin means that I blindly love Michelle Obama. I don’t.

audiculous on November 29, 2010 at 12:27 PM

“for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”

That’s the Milwaukee quote.

“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

That’s the one from Madison.

Neither of those quotes are anything at all like your creation. There’s nothing about “the direction of government” and there’s nothing in there about the election of Reagan.

Your interpretation is made up out of whole cloth, it is intellectually dishonest to completely change the quote and it’s meaning.

If you’d like we can parse the rest of the speeches, and I’ll show you where you are even more wrong that I’ve already alluded.

I didn’t say that you were wrong because of your dislike of Palin, I said your intentional mis-interpretation of M. Obama’s quote is easily explained by your opinion of Palin.

Don’t try the same mistake of mis-representing what I say the same way you take such liberties with M. Obama.

Jason Coleman on November 29, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Try listening to a clip of the speech, not a single sentence before
A) you say that I’m misinterpreting
B) you compound it by saying that my misinterpretation is deliberate.

and even in the single sentence you’re using she she offers a reason for her feeling of pride…

hope in the first
because people want change in the second.

interpreting what she means by either hope or they want change
is the crux of the matter, and you’re not demonstrating anything that negates any possible interpretation, not even mine.

audiculous on November 29, 2010 at 2:39 PM

So you admit then that you’re taking liberties well beyond what was said.

I would discourage you from continuing to tell me to listen to the record when you basically admit that you are distorting it greatly for your own personal interpretation/reasons. I’ve demonstrated a far better grasp of the record than you have up to this point. I’m not going to allow you to play any “context” games with me, I have the context, and it doesn’t follow at all what you are claiming.

Hope – doesn’t translate to “direction of government”
People want change – doesn’t translate to “since Reagan”
and vice versa.

Leave the quotes what they are and stop projecting your own wants upon them and claim that you know what she meant. You simply don’t and your characterization of her remarks does not follow from the original record.

You made up your interpretation from whole cloth, it’s as simple as that.

Jason Coleman on November 29, 2010 at 6:10 PM

Very silly, Jason, very silly.

I began by saying that I was offering my interpretation of the remarks, so you’re being a bit obtuse thinking that I’m admitting to something when what I’m doing is trying to clear your confusion through repetition.

If you have anything to say about why my interpretation is not reasonable, fell free.

But if you continue to cleverly discover that I’m not quoting the actual words used, you’re just digging further down in the same hole.

audiculous on November 29, 2010 at 6:32 PM

It’s simple, she’s not talking about “the direction of government” and she’s not talking about Reagan.

What she is talking about is us, the nation, and how she has never been proud to be a part of it. She offers no limitations on her statement, she’s referring to the people, the organizations, the institutions and also the government(s).

This ties back to the “fundamental change” in the nation that she and the won wanted to bring, the remaking of society and the country writ large.

By inserting the limitations you do on the “direction of government”, and the election of Reagan (which you’re wrong on the dates on, she wasn’t an adult when Reagan was elected), you have given “fundamental change” to M. Obama’s statement.

Your interpretation is a distortion of the comment to make it less offensive and tie it back to Palin’s perceived Reagan-esque populism. Perhaps you don’t realize you’re even doing it but your drawing the inappropriate parallels, I’m just tearing them down.

Jason Coleman on November 29, 2010 at 9:45 PM

sorry, Jason, but what you are doing is instead insisting on your own interpretation of what she meant.

audiculous on November 29, 2010 at 9:58 PM

and I’m quite aware that I’m interpreting her statement in a way that makes it less offensive than a very simplistic and literal interpretation.

audiculous on November 29, 2010 at 10:06 PM

sorry, Jason, but what you are doing is instead insisting on your own interpretation of what she meant.

For someone who not too recently was trying to lecture me about listening to the remarks in toto, I find this funny. Obviously you haven’t listened to or read the entire speeches, but if you had, you’ll see that what I offered as her meaning is supported by the rest of her comments, explicitly so.

Yours on the other hand, are not.

Jason Coleman on November 29, 2010 at 10:17 PM