What we have here, are two good ones.
The first, I see no problem with, because some Blacks were saying the same thing.
of Nevada described in private then- as "light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." Obama is the nation's first African-American president.
"I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African-Americans for my improper comments," Reid said in a statement released after the excerpts were first reported on the Web site of The Atlantic.
The second, well, what can I say. This can be looked at in multiple ways. I'd like to see which way sticks:
[A]s Hillary bungled Caroline, Bill’s handling of Ted was even worse. The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.
My, my, my... The "first Black president", himself...
And while I'm at it, some people are trying to compare what Reid said to what Lott said in 2002:
"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either," Lott said at last week's party.
Let me see if I understand. Reid is saying Obama is a good candidate because of his speech and because he is light skinned. (Not really, but...) Meanwhile, Lott is saying the era of segregation was a good thing. So, what's the comparison, again?