Small Beer, Big Hangover-By FRANK RICH: 'The Only Crime Obama Committed Was Honesty'

[kpete]

Op-Ed Columnist
Small Beer, Big Hangover

By FRANK RICH
Published: August 1, 2009

THE comforting thing about each “national conversation on race” is that the “teachable moment” passes before any serious conversation can get going.

This one ended with a burp. The debate about which brew would best give President Obama Joe Six-Pack cred in his White House beer op with Harvard’s town-and-gown antagonists hit the front page of The Wall Street Journal. Had Obama picked a brand evoking an elitist whiff of John Kerry — Stella Artois, perhaps? — we’d have another week of coverage dissecting his biggest political gaffe since rolling a gutter ball at a Pennsylvania bowling alley.

You can’t blame Obama if he’s perplexed about the recent events. He answers a single, legitimate race-based question at the end of a news conference and is roundly condemned for “stepping on his own message” about health care. It was the noisiest sector of the news media that did much of the stepping. “Health care is bad for ratings,” explained one cable anchor, Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC, with refreshing public candor. What a relief, then, to drop dreary debates about the public option and declare a national conversation about black-white fisticuffs. Especially when this particular incident is truly small beer next to the far more traumatic national sea change on race that will keep sowing conflict and anger long after Henry Louis Gates Jr. finishes his proposed documentary on racial profiling.

I’ll return to the larger picture, but before the battle of Cambridge fades entirely, let’s note that the only crime Obama committed at his news conference was honesty (always impolitic in Washington). He conceded he did not know “all the facts” and so wisely resisted passing judgment on “what role race played” in the incident. He said, accurately, that “separate and apart from this incident” there is “a long history” of “African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportionately.” And, yes, the police did act “stupidly in arresting” — not to mention shackling — “somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.” If Obama had really wanted to go for the jugular, he might have added that the police may have overstepped the law as well.

more at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/opinion/02rich.html?_r=1

[MarjorieG]

1. The first account, really, to highlight the pecision with which Obama spoke, although still think

stupidly a loaded word and could have said it more couched. So many things were wrong with the arrest, which both Gates and Crowley saw through different sets of lens, and glad Herbert yesterday mentiond the whole arrival to arrest took mere minutes to escalate.

[Demeter]

2. "Laws? We Don' Need No Stinkin' Laws!"

----John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, John Mitchell, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, etc

[midnight]

3. If you don't want to know how the President feels, don't ask him.

I do think that as an attorney the president should speak out for those who are being legally rail roaded on their own property.