Speculation goes both ways over the question by Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times. It was about the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates at his home in Cambridge, Mass. She asked:
'What does that incident say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America?'
While Ms. Sweet took both praise and criticism for asking the question, it was really Obama's answer that set off the controversy,
'Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact.'
As one might imagine, the Cambridge police are not in agreement with Obama's conclusion. It was not "fair to say" that the "Cambridge police acted stupidly." Sgt Leon Lashley, the African-American partner of arresting officer sgt James Crowley, said it was Professor Gates who acted strangely.
'Lashley says Gates' reaction to Crowley was "a little bit stranger than it should have been."
Asked if Gates should have been arrested, Lashley said [he] supported Crowley "100 percent."'
According to Ms. Sweet, the question was not planted, and the White House had no idea it was coming, even though they called to give her a heads up.
'I got a call from the White House press office about 6:30 p.m. confirming I was indeed going to show up at the 8 p.m. press conference. I was told I "may" get a question from the president. No one asked me -- directly or indirectly -- about what I may be asking. No one from the White House tried to plant any question.'
But down in the comment section of her story behind the question, Ms. Sweet gets it from both sides. Blame...
'Your question has opened up so many old racial wounds from the past here in Greater Boston. What a mess! Next time please think before you ask!'
More blame...
'Oh, come on now.
Your "question" was designed to torpedo the President's presentation on health care reform for all the tactical reasons you gave -- where else ? -- at the end of your explanation above.'
And praise...
'No need to explain your question. It will make it seem as though it was planned. Personally, I knew nothing of the Gates' incident and I find that more of a travesty than you asking the question.
Eventually, it was going to come out and you brought it to the fore-front in the media at the Obama press conference.
Thanks.'
My initial reaction to the question was, what a soft toss. But what a disastrous swing and miss. He shouldn't need a Miranda warning before he answers questions from the press. Anybody who's ever seen a "Law and Order" episode knows that it's a good idea to have your lawyer present when you have to answer the D.A.'s questions. Well, Obama is a lawyer. But here we have Obama, admittedly not having all the facts, yet shooting off his mouth anyway. How bright is that?
In October 2008 Charles Krauthammer wrote,
'Obama has shown that he is a man of limited experience, questionable convictions, deeply troubling associations (Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko) and an alarming lack of self- definition - do you really know who he is and what he believes? Nonetheless, he's got both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament. That will likely be enough to make him president.'
Limited experience. Check. Questionable convictions. Check. Troubling associations. Check. Well, now Obama is president, but where is the first-class intellect?
Comments