Is There Something Wrong with Politicians Thinking Before Speaking?

In light of the maelstrom surrounding Senator Harry Reid and his comment about the electability of Obama, based of course on where he fell on the color spectrum and his lack of a "negro dialect," I think that it might be worthwhile to re-examine the comments of another Senate Majority Leader who didn't think twice before taking his one shot at speaking.

Former Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi made the following statement at the 100th birthday of late Senator Strom Thurmond back in '02: "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...." Anyone who claims to know anything about American political history in the mid-20th century surely would know the history of the States' Rights Democratic Party or "Dixiecrats." I also think that there is little doubt regarding what Lott was implying (I did not know that Mississippi governor Fielding Wright was Thurmond's running mate in '48, which makes, in my mind, Lott's comment even worse).

Senator Reid described Obama as being "light skinned," and that he had "no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." These comments when put within their broader context were Reid's way of trying to explain why Obama may be successful as a candidate for POTUS. It was in my mind as bad as then candidate Joe Biden saying that Obama was both "clean" and "articulate." Both men, in pitiful ways, were trying to offer compliments to Obama. Both failed, in my opinion. I think that blogger Keli Goff nailed it in her post over at Huffington Post by suggesting that Reid's comments say more about his lack of substantive interaction with black peers than they do deep-seated personal racist perspectives.

Without a doubt, members of the GOP are suggesting that Reid's comments are the equivalent of Lott's, and that Reid should resign his leadership post. It is in fact far from being equivalent, especially when both sets of comments are put into their proper perspectives. Lott suggested that if the country had elected Thrumond and Wright, then the nation would not have its various "problems." The only problem that the "Dixiecrats" had was possible racial integration, to which Lott attributed to "all these problems over all these years." Reid made a weak attempt at offering "praise" to a black dude who was considering running for president.

In retrospect, perhaps Lott should not have been forced (by President Bush no less) to resign his leadership post. I think he was making what he felt to be an honest assessment of the country, just as Reid was making what he felt to be an honest political assessment about the man he later supported to become the first black POTUS.

Both men failed to, as my grandmother says, think twice and speak once. But, there is no question in my mind as to whose statement was worse. Now, it seems that Obama is fine with Reid's apology, and he has decided to move on (after all, Reid's comment was about Obama). Perhaps we need to do the same.

But at some point, I think that we will need to examine exactly what Reid said, because I think he was essentially (and unfortunately) correct in his assessment of why Obama would be politically palatable to the broader American electorate.