Guests: Dana Milbank, John Cusack, John Dean, Jonathan Alter, Chris Kofinis
Transcript:
KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST (voice over): Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow?
The Friday night polling stunner. “Newsweek” last month: Obama, 46; McCain, 46. Newsweek tonight: Obama, 51; McCain, 36, Obama by 15. Plus, he gets feed (ph) in our time, Senator Clinton to campaign with Obama one week from today.“86-ing the 527.” Moveon.org says its liberal 527 group will go dark, inspired by Obama‘s call that both sides should shutter the unchecked advertising of the groups, not that his holding his breath about McCain -
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BARACK OBAMA, (D) PRESUMPTIVE PRES. NOMINEE: You and I both know that 527 pop up pretty quickly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: The Democratic sell-out. The House votes aye and key senators, Obama included, say they‘ll vote yes if telecom immunity is still in the FISA bill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH, (D) OHIO: Under this bill, large corporations and big government can work together to violate the United States Constitution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: The McClellan hearings. Outing Valerie Plame, did the president know it was being done? Absolutely not. The vice president? No comment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT MCCLELLAN, FMR. WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: It was wrong to reveal her identity, because it compromised the effectiveness of a covert official for political reasons.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: And the ranking Republican Lamar Smith says -
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. LAMAR SMITH, ® TEXAS: It‘s hard to take Mr. McClellan or this hearing too seriously. Scott McClellan alone will have to wrestle with whether it was worth selling out the president and his friends for a few pieces of silver.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: Strong words, Mr. Smith, unless it‘s coming from a man like you who sold out his country.
Worst Persons: Rupert Murdoch‘s latest gaffe, the actual number in question is 2,202,000, the number he reports is 300,000. Close.
And, he‘s an activist. He doesn‘t just lay one on TV.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN CUSACK, ACTOR: You think you can tell President Bush apart from John McCain, really?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: John Cusack joins us tonight.
All of that and more: Now on COUNTDOWN.
(on camera): Good evening. This is Friday, June 20th, 137 days until the 2008 presidential election.
Even though it‘s fully deserving the title of “Obama maniacs” did not dare to dream, even though as faithful among the “McCaininites,” did not have such nightmares. A new addition of the “Newsweek” Poll in which the men were tied a month ago, anything but at the hour, this summer formally begins.
Our fifth story on the COUNTDOWN: Obama by 15, but the caveat that Michael Dukakis had a similar lead at this point in his race 20 years ago. The poll shows Obama bounding away from McCain by a margin of 51 to 36. McCain getting barely more than one out of three registered voters, and Clinton voters, specifically women, the majority of electorate is now backing Obama over McCain by even bigger margin, 54 to 33, that is a 21-point lead.
That 54 percent, of course, now includes Senator Clinton herself. She will make her first public appearance, we learned today, with Obama next Friday. Logistical details still to come. This, following a private joint meeting next Thursday with 100 of her top fundraisers to make them his top fundraisers.
Last night, Senator Clinton held a private conference call with other big fundraisers, telling them to start giving to Obama and asking them to help her with her own campaign debt.
(INAUDIBLE) specifically, Obama‘s money is still an issue of contention for the new frontrunner, he‘s decision to opt out a public financing, still generating questions, at least, among reporters who asked him today to explain what was so bad about the existing system that he became the first major party candidate in decades not to opt into it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: Well, what we got of the system, as I said yesterday, that where we see 527s, the RNC, or the DNC, outside groups, raising vast amount of money, much of it undisclosed, from special interests, from PACs, from lobbyists, and that amount of money last election cycle dwarfed some of the money that were spent within the system.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: A report at Politico.com today says there are literally no serious anti-Obama 527s yet—the independent groups with no caps on donations, not now in existence, none in the pipeline. Politico reporting that Karl Rove approached wealthy GOP veterans of past smear campaigns, with none so far opening their wallets, even T. Boone Pickens, the patron of the swiftboats, like others, either sitting out 2008, or focusing on other issues.
Obama, however, said the lack of 527s now does not guarantee a lack of them tomorrow.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: You and I both know that 527s pop up pretty quickly and have enormous influence and we‘ve already seen them—there was an ad, one in South Dakota by Floyd Brown, I think, were it took a speech that I‘d made extolling faith and made it seem as if I have said that America was a Muslim nation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: We should note also that Politico reported—
Republicans believe there will be third-party groups attacking Obama. McCain, of course, while criticizing such efforts, has also said he will not play referee on the ads. He also failed to get his own party in North Carolina to stop running anti-Obama ads there in the primaries.
On the left, Moveon.org today shut down it‘s 527, saying it is honoring Obama‘s request, saying it believes it can do better relying on its political action group which is limited, like 527s, unlike 527s, rather, to donations of $5,000 or less.
Let‘s turn now to MSNBC political analyst, Jonathan Alter, also, of course, senior editor at “Newsweek” magazine.
Thanks for coming in, Jon.
JONATHAN ALTER, MNSBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Hi, Keith.
OLBERMANN: Your magazine‘s poll numbers, they‘re a better sign for Obama than they were for Dukakis for what reason?
ALTER: Well, you can argue that it‘s baked in the cake more this time. But we do have to stipulate a few things. First of all, this is only one poll, even though it is a “Newsweek” Poll. I‘d like to see some others before I‘m willing to say that this is a super ball bounce. You know, a huge, huge bounce the way it looks tonight. But the indications are pretty strong right now that the Democratic Party is coming together behind Obama and independents are moving in his direction.
A lot can happen. You can have another terrorist attack, return to a fear campaign that really connected, if that were to happen, Reverend Wrights‘ memoirs might be coming out between now and the election.
So, you know, I‘ve covered enough of these to know that it‘s very premature to declare this over, but it is much different than Mike Dukakis‘ race. First of all, Dukakis wasn‘t anywhere close to the candidate that Obama is. Second of all, he‘s running against incumbent Vice President George H.W. Bush, who was running for a third Reagan term at a time when the incumbent was very popular. The incumbent right now to whom John McCain is lashed is extraordinarily unpopular.
OLBERMANN: There‘s also a danger of looking back as to what this indicates in the past, in the recent past, but a lot of inferring is being done here that this had something to do with, or at least backs up those who say—well, this toughened - the primary season did, in fact, toughen Obama up and this is the result of it, when that finally was sealed over when the waters covered the p-quad (ph), suddenly, it‘s a 15-point lead. Anything to that?
ALTER: I think there is something to that and you can make the argument, I think Obama himself understood this, and actually mentioned it to me during the South Carolina primary, that he thought that the tough race with Hillary Clinton could help him long term, puts a little more mileage on him, shows that he can take a punch, and meanwhile, his organization was growing all of these different primary states. So they got a kind of a dress rehearsal for November by going through these bruising primaries.
Notice that one state that he‘s not doing so well in this is Michigan. He didn‘t campaign there during the primaries. So, I think that we all will look back on—if he goes on to win, that the primary season as having actually helped him.
OLBERMANN: This meeting of the minds next Friday, a week from now, with Clinton and Obama in some kind of joint appearance, Lord knows where the news was so important that the details seem to be irrelevant until we come upon the point. Is it political reconciliation or is this actually more debt reconciliation?
ALTER: Well, you know, I think it‘s some of both. You know, he will go to his fundraisers and ask them to help her erase her debt. She is getting on board as an enthusiastic member of the Obama team which she did in her concession speech.
So, they have mutual interests here but the bigger Obama‘s lead is in the polls, particularly among women, the less likely it is that Hillary Clinton herself will go on the ticket. So, I think at this point, we should be starting to talk about the chance of her going on the ticket is something of a long shot.
OLBERMANN: Which, it almost lends a different air to her support. Yes, there are financial considerations in both directions because her supporters, her financial supporters can now work for him in ways that they could not even have work for her anymore, especially the big donors, and his supporters can help her out and help her campaign out of that campaign debt, those are givens.
But having said that, there are other ways out for her. She does not necessarily have to be doing even what she‘s doing now and we‘re all forget that so much has happened. It‘s two weeks tomorrow since she dropped out, it‘s not like it was six weeks ago.
ALTER: Yes, you know, the thing that so peculiar about the campaign finance laws is that she can‘t have her own people erase her debt. He has to have his people do it. And he needs her people to give what‘s expected to be as much as $30 million for his general election campaign. So that‘s the twisted nature of our system, which he, today, was just objecting to and thinking that we need to redo when he becomes president.
OLBERMANN: Well, sincerity and financial self-interest are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They can both run on parallel tracks.
ALTER: That‘s right.
OLBERMANN: Jonathan Alter, political analyst for MSNBC, senior editor at “Newsweek” magazine, as always, thanks for coming in. Have a good weekend.
ALTER: Thanks, Keith. You, too.
OLBERMANN: Today‘s news about the disarmed 527s on the right, and the unilateral disarmament of one of the left‘s most powerful 527s, Moveon.org, comes at the same point of the campaign where a last time out the swiftboaters and other mudslingers were already up and running. It leaves a vacuum of uncertainty about if and when, and from whom the mud comes this time.
Let‘s turn to Democratic strategist, Chris Kofinis, whose job was to anticipate the mud, while communications director for the campaign of John Edwards.
Great thanks for your time tonight, sir.
CHRIS KOFINIS, FMR. EDWARDS CAMPAIGN SPOKESMAN: Thanks, Keith.
OLBERMANN: The political assessment here, are the mudslingers on the disabled list this season?
KOFINIS: More like playing possum. I mean, let‘s be realistic. They are going to unleash, you know, their 527 groups. It‘s a question of if, not when.
If you read the Politico story, you know, it‘s maybe we will, might do it, could do it. I can answer the question. They will do it. My guess is you‘re going to see it probably closer to the convention as well as after.
The real interesting question for me is why even do they need 527s? I mean, people forget that John McCain was the first online grassroots candidate. I mean, he raised $1 million back in 2000, which was an unprecedented number.
What‘s happened? And what‘s happened if you look at it is his message. He has none. He‘s changed who he is as candidate. He‘s flip-flopped on major issues. Neither his base nor his supporters know exactly who he is. And so, I mean, that‘s, I think, become a real problem for him in terms of being able to raise money online.
And so, when you kind of step back, you kind of look at it, the reality is, that John McCain of 2000 would neither donate nor support the John McCain of 2008. That‘s his problem.
OLBERMANN: But let‘s turn that on its head here, Chris, with Obama‘s statement about 527s and Moveon.org dropping its, could that be as much about the fact that he has this money spigot available to him? The number came in from May, $22 million, it‘s $43 million on hand for the general election campaign for Obama. Is it not just the question of whether or not 527s are right but whether or not they are necessary for the left side of this equation?
KOFINIS: Listen, you know, in the past, the reason why the 527s and these independent groups were playing such an active role was because, one, the Republicans tended to just crush us in terms of fundraising. That started changing in 2004 when grassroots fundraising, online fundraising just exploded. You saw that with Howard Dean, and now, you‘re seeing that with Barack Obama at another level. It‘s unprecedented.
I mean, I think, the reality is the reason why Senator Obama and his campaign just want to basically shun the 527s is they want to be able to control their campaign and the message and it actually is the right thing to do. You want to be able to fund your campaign through small dollar donations. Ninety percent of his donors give $100 or less. That is a public financed campaign by definition.
The real problem here is John McCain‘s inability to tap the millions of supporters out there that he clearly in theory has. I mean, if you have 1 million supporters and in theory he does, you‘ve got $100 from them, you $100 million, you have unlimited resources. What does this say about the McCain campaign that they can‘t tap that? That‘s a real failure.
OLBERMANN: So, in a weird way, these “Newsweek” numbers with a 15-point slippage, he goes with a tie with Obama in May to 15 points behind as of tonight in this “Newsweek” Poll. Is that good news for fundraising for McCann or do people bail out at 15 points, or just, other people say, “Oh, my God, we‘re really in huge trouble, we better get in”?
KOFINIS: You know, I don‘t know. It‘s a good question. I mean, the problem is, if you read that, a Politico story and you read between the lines, at least, one read, I don‘t buy it, but, you know, arguably you can look at it this way. I mean, the Republicans are almost looking at John McCain as a bad investment for 2008, like why waste our money.
I mean, I‘m not going to bet on that. And I think any Democrat that‘s going to sit there and pretend that the 527s are not going to come, the Republicans aren‘t going to mobilize to attack Senator Obama and the campaign like crazy, it‘s going to happen. I think, the problem right now is John McCain is a flawed candidate with a flawed message and that is impossible at a year when people have seen the last eight years and the damage the Bush administration has done.
So, for McCain to go out there and consistently embrace it and change positions that actually made him a unique candidate in 2000, to become a Bush acolyte just doesn‘t make any sense. That‘s what‘s hurting him.
OLBERMANN: Chris Kofinis, Democratic strategist, former spokesman for the Edwards campaign. As always, sir, our great thanks.
KOFINIS: Thanks, Keith.
OLBERMANN: The Obama test in the Senate. Next, the House approves the FISA fold-up. Obama promises to fight telecom immunity but he may vote yes any way next week.
John McClellan testifies, John Cusack joins us, and Murdoch‘s minions of darkness smear Tim Russert‘s memory again.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
OLBERMANN: By 164 votes, many of them are shifting suddenly just a way a pack of flies will mindlessly (ph) all shift two feet to the left for no apparent reason in summer, the House gave the president what he wanted on FISA.
Later in Worst: John Bolton loses track who was president on 9/11, Chris Wallace loses track of who was anchoring on FOX on primary nights, and the “New York Post” loses track of, well, everything.
Not to oversell it, but also just in tonight, we may have the greatest piece of videotape of George Bush in action ever, seriously. Press, play, and record now.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
OLBERMANN: It is the last thing a man says before he becomes president, a catechism between him and the chief justice which concludes with him swearing he, quote, “will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God.”
Nothing in there about ignoring the Constitution or gutting it, yet in our fourth story tonight: There is Mr. Bush doing it again and being aided and abetted by Democrats who outnumber his people on Capitol Hill. The bill, a bipartisan compromise on FISA was rubber-stamped this morning, 293 to 129, this, after impassioned debate even between members of the same party.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH, (D) OHIO: Let‘s stand up for the Fourth Amendment. Let‘s remember when this country was founded, Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who give up their essential liberties to achieve a measure of security deserve neither.”
REP. NANCY PELOSI, (D) CALIFORNIA: We have to fight the war on terrorism, the fight against terrorism, wherever it may exist. Good intelligence is necessary for us to know the plan of the terrorist and to defeat those plans. So we can‘t go without a bill. That‘s just simply not an option.
But to have a bill, we must have a bill that does not violate the Constitution of the United States. And this bill does not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: The bill stands not only to corrupt the Constitution but will immunize telecom communities that spied on American citizens at the behest of President and keep them from any legal liability. As the Senate prepares to take this up, FISA 2008 is already a campaign issue. Senator Obama offered qualified support, warning that as president, he would monitor the program closely, which is nice, but not really close enough. John McCain, after blaming the ACLU and trial lawyers for delaying the passage of this bill, said he will support the measure.
John Dean is White House counsel under Richard Nixon, author of “Broken Government,” joins us tonight from Los Angeles for a comment on this.
John, good evening.
JOHN DEAN, FMR. NIXON WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Good evening, Keith.
OLBERMANN: What happened here, do you suppose? Is this—is this some sort of prophyllactic gesture for the election on behalf of Democrats or how did this transpire?
DEAN: Well, I think, you‘ve got to give one for the terrorists on our Fourth Amendment. They really did some damage today in this so-called compromise, contrary to what the speaker said that really does hurt the Constitution. So, it‘s very troubling and it‘s not a good day for civil liberties, particularly.
OLBERMANN: We have seen before, learned way after the fact that before several critical bills like this and votes, that the Democrats were shown harrowing secrets from the supposed terror threats—terror threats that later turned out to be exaggerated, even fabricated. I don‘t have any evidence whatsoever that this happened this time or suggesting that. But given the suddenness of the Democrats fold, does it not feel like this has happened again this time?
DEAN: Well, it wouldn‘t surprise me if it had happened. You know, they have used fear very effectively. This is somewhat sudden in finally reaching a conclusion on what to do with a very troublesome problem that they have been resisting on.
It would not surprise me also if it really is what I‘ve been told, is that the conservative elements of the Democratic Party lean on the leadership and said, “Listen, we‘ve got some really tough opponents from Republicans in closed districts. We need this. We don‘t want to have this hanging over our head. Let‘s get it solved now before it‘s too late.”
OLBERMANN: Senator Obama‘s position on this confuses me. He loathes the telecom immunity, he says that he would fight it immediately and he would monitor it carefully as president. The vote though is next week. He better do that part of the fight quick.
If this gets in through the Senate, there‘s no way to get it out again, is there? I mean, the history of this nation in terms of lost civil liberties is pretty bad about restoring them.
DEAN: Well, I spent a lot of time reading that bill today, and it‘s a very poorly-drafted bill. One of the things that is not clear is whether it‘s not possible later to go after the telecoms for criminal liability. And that something that Obama has said during this campaign he would do, unlike prior presidents who come in and really give their predecessor a pass, he said, “I won‘t do that.” And that might be why he‘s just sitting back saying, “Well, I‘m going to let this go through. But that doesn‘t mean I‘m going to give the telecoms a pass.” I would love it if he gets on the Senate floor and says, “I‘m keeping that option opened.”
OLBERMANN: In other words, let the private suits drop and get somebody in there who‘ll actually use the laws that still exist to prosecute and make the actual statement and maybe throw a few people in jail.
DEAN: Exactly. And it looks to me, as I read this bill and talk to a number of people in Washington familiar with the bill, some who are involved in the negotiations, and they say, “You know - we just didn‘t think about this issue.” So, as it goes to the Senate, maybe Obama‘s got a shot to take, you know, a future look at this thing and not let them have the pass that they think they‘re getting.
OLBERMANN: That would be a nice symmetry to that—that everybody had been so lulled into a sense of complacency because of the Bush success on this that they‘ve left out anything that protected anybody legally, if you had a president who actually believed in the Constitution. That would be a nice touch. To that point, Jonathan Turley suggested last night though, that this is as much about immunizing Congress for its complicity with the president as it is about anything else to use the play on (ph) acronyms that I used last night, this is not FISA, it‘s CYA.
DEAN: I caught your acronym and I listened to Jonathan last night. And while I—you know, it wouldn‘t be the first time or the last time that there‘s been a CY action in Washington. That isn‘t what I‘ve heard. And so I‘m not sure, but it‘s one of the things I know we‘ll never learn the answer to, for this reason—those people were all briefed on a classified basis, so they really can‘t explain it.
OLBERMANN: How convenient that is.
John Dean, author of “Broken Government,” giving us a little hope in here that perhaps a President Obama or some future Democrat might be able to still pursue this within the courts. Thank you, John. Have a good weekend.
DEAN: Thanks, Keith.
OLBERMANN: There is ice on Mars. Unfortunately, there doesn‘t appear to be any whiskey.
And, poor Chris Wallace. We‘re going to have to break the bad news to him. Apparently, they have told him some people don‘t get to do election night over there, even though they do get to do election over there.
Ahead on COUNTDOWN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
OLBERMANN: Best Persons in a moment and the greatest piece of non-speaking George Bush videotape ever.
First, on this day, 20 years ago, a brand new camera operator on the game show, “The Price is Right,” put a little too much English on one of his moves, swinging the camera abruptly and forcibly enough to send model, Janice Pennington, flying 10 feet off the stage into the audience and knocking her out cold. She was OK but thus was born the game “Plinko” (ph). It sounds she (ph).
Let‘s play Oddball.
To COUNTDOWN to Mars bureau where scientists working on NASA‘s Phoenix Mars Lander think they have found evidence of ice on Mars. This is a ditch dug by the lander‘s robotic arm. In a before (ph) picture taken on Sunday, there are diced-size formations in the lower left corner of the ditch.
NASA figured it was ice but they were not sold until they saw this picture taken Thursday, four days later, the formations have disappeared, leaving little doubt the formations were made of frozen water vaporized when exposed to the Martian atmosphere. Of course, those scientists are unsure of the ice theory, we‘re finally convinced when the lander sent this picture back to Houston.
And now here it is, Raleigh, North Carolina. A 26 percent approval rating feels like. Watch the two guys behind the fence waiting for Marine One to land. As the president disembarks, he waves hello to them and nothing. So he tries a bigger wave. Yoohoo, hey. Nothing. Eventually he gives us and saunters out of screen. Next time, give him a couple no-bid contracts. We‘ll show that to you again later in the hour.
The Scott McClellan hearing—it is not much but it‘s on the record. Sometimes the only way to start is to say the truth out loud. We‘ll ask John Cusack about that after his role in a new ad hammering home the links between John McCain and George Bush.
These stories, the “Countdown‘s” three best persons of the world. Number three, best dumb sports fans. Dutch soccer supporters, visiting Bern in Switzerland to watch their team play. The railway worker was dumbfounded when he realized the large group of Dutch fans was following him on to the tracks like lemmings as he went to make a repair. He was wearing an orange safety vest. Their team‘s official color is orange. So they followed him. Swiss rail authorities are temporarily switching to yellow safety vests until the tournament is over.
Number two, best smack down. Bernard Goldberg on FOX Noise, as Bill O. went all projection over a European mayonnaise ad in which the mayo is so authentic it temporarily turns a housewife into a New York City deli counter man. The husband then kisses him briefly.
It was obviously a gay thing, Bill O. bellowed. I don‘t know what the message is besides gay people like mayonnaise. Goldberg‘s response, Bill, if you think a major corporation like Heinz is trying to sell a product like mayonnaise by appealing to gay people—and I say this in the best possible sense—you‘re nuts. This is not a gay issue. It‘s a mayonnaise issue.
Number one best dumb criminal. The Botox bandit of Port St. Lucie, Florida, has been busted. A woman was going into the offices of cosmetic surgeons, getting injections and then making excuses about having to go out to her card for her credit card and never coming back and never paying. 23-yeawr-old Kelly Thomas, recognized because she had before and after pictures at one of the clinics. Apparently, it never dawned on her that somebody might release the photos. Ms. Thomas, I know you‘re in jail and I know the free Botox treatments are a thing of the past, but still, why the long face?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
OLBERMANN: “Only those who know the underlying truth can bring this to an ends. Sadly, they remain silent,” the words of former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, this time under oath, in our third story on “Countdown,” describing the Bush administration‘s overstated and over-packaged selling of prewar intelligence and facing critics like Ranking Republican Lamar Smith, who snidely welcomed McClellan to the Judiciary Committee of the book of the month club. Appearing voluntarily before the House Judiciary Committee at its request, Mr. McClellan said he did not think President Bush knew about the leak of CIA officer Valarie Plame‘s identity. As for the vice president, quote, “I do not know. There‘s a lot of suspicion there.”
Pay attention to how McClellan‘s own unwitting lie in the matter came about, September 29th, 2003, right after the leak investigation was launched.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT MCCLELLAN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: That Saturday morning I received a call from the White House chief of staff, Andy Card, and he said that the president and vice president had spoken that morning and they wanted me to provide the same assurances for Scooter Libby that I had for Karl Rove. I was reluctant to do it but I headed into the White House that Saturday morning. I talked with Andy Card. I said I would provide the same assurances for Scooter Libby given that he would give me the same assurance that Karl Rove had. I got on the phone with Scooter Libby and asked him point blank, were you involved in this in any way, and he assured me in unequivocal terms that he was not, meaning the leaking of Valarie Plame‘s identity to any reporters.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: Also notable that the leak of Valerie Plame‘s name and the distorted prewar intel of which it was a part may never fully be addressed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCLELLAN: I think that the problem here is that this White House promised or assured the American people that at some point when this was behind us, they would talk publicly about it. And they have refused to. and that‘s why I think, more than any other reason, we are here today and this suspicion still remains.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: So when Congressman Smith says, quote, “Scott McClellan alone will have to wrestle with whether it was worth selling out the president and his friends for a piece of silver,” he should consider exactly what he himself was selling and the consequences far more grave than a few pieces of silver.
Dana Milbank, the national political reporter of “Washington Post,” MSNBC political analyst, attended today‘s hearings.
Dana, good evening.
DANA MILBANK, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST & NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER,
“WASHINGTON POST”: Good evening, Keith.
OLBERMANN: The reception for Mr. McClellan before judiciary today sounds like it was varying wildly between the book critics and the Democrats and one of the Democrats, at least one of them, invoked impeachment?
MILBANK: Actually, three of them invoked impeachment. One of them was Robert Wexler, who has been a key surrogate for Barack Obama. Basically, all of that is is invoking impeachment. The Democratic leaders, as you know, have taken it off the table. Really, all they can do in this sort of a forum is make some noise. It really actually did become sort of a book club gathering of where he was getting raves from the Democrats and rather harsh reviews from the other side.
OLBERMANN: Those who raved on his behalf, was there any sense there today that this great body of discontent about pre-war intel, about selling the war, about the lies, the attacking of the critics of the war, that all of this is going to be in some mysterious way resolved after Mr. Bush leaves office or is it going to sit there like an historical exhibit of the Smithsonian?
MILBANK: Yes, it will be an exhibit in the Smithsonian and Joe Wilson will donate his body to the exhibit. Usually this sort of thing would come out. The National Archives would get the note and they‘d eventually be released for the benefit of historians. But as we know, a lot of the crucial e-mails and things will have been deleted by that time any way. There‘s not a lot of hope here, either, that this committee will get anywhere, since it‘s an actual prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, could not get any further than this. Who knows in a quarter century we may be able to write a footnote in history.
OLBERMANN: About Fitzgerald, the chairman of the Judiciary, John Conyers said that the incidents in McClellan‘s book—let me quote him exactly—“may constitute obstruction of justice beyond what Scooter Libby was convicted for.”
The book is essentially—the key elements of the book, they‘re now on the congressional record. Does it move the Judiciary Committee‘s investigation forward? What is the nature of that investigation or are they just, as we said before, the only stage right here is telling the truth on the record allowed and hoping something good will happen of it some day?
MILBANK: Yeah. Well, you see, Keith, there‘s no accident that the contempt of Congress is a misdemeanor. Carl and Scooter and the whole gang know that they can stone wall and avoid this committee. All they can do is scream and yell about it. and there‘s not a whole lot of time that they have that they have to worry about. It will be very easy for them to runoff the clock.
Clearly, as you saw from Lamar Smith and his book of the month club remark that they are not going to get a lot of support there. Yeah, they can call a few more hearings. Hard to see, as Scott McClellan himself said today, how they get much beyond this without other people coming to talk.
OLBERMANN: Even though this is a Rosetta Stone—I‘ve used that term for like the 15th time about trying to understand the last few years. His point, he may be the last one to speak. Is there any possibility, that anyone is going to follow down this path even if it is later on if Karl Rove needs 5 million bucks?
MILBANK: No, I don‘t think. Plenty of people are talking about Tony Fratto, who said today that Scott McClellan has said everything that he doesn‘t know, so why not say some more. No, I think—I saw the puffy bags under Scott‘s eyes there. He‘s been under a great deal of strain because so many of his old friends have been so loyal to the president and so tough on him. I see no cracks occurring where others are going to follow him.
OLBERMANN: The cracks may be going to occur if the Republicans don‘t get the White House bank and the rest of these people don‘t have a source of income after January of next year. We‘ll see.
Dana Milbank of the “Washington Post” and MSNBC, permitting me to talk about that while he sits there and nods knowingly.
Thank you, Dana. Have a good weekend.
MILBANKS: Thanks, Keith.
OLBERMANN: Polls show John McCain‘s key chance at winning is to separate himself from President Bush. John Cusack has other ideas. He will join us.
And anybody out there remember who was president on 9/11? Because former unconfirmed U.N. Ambassador John Bolton can‘t seem to remember. Worst Persons next on “Countdown.”
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
OLBERMANN: John Cusack on his MoveOn.org ad, his film “War, Inc.” a satire which looks surprisingly like a documentary about the Bush administration in Iraq. The first, the worst, the “New York Post” actually does not know, the rest of us know, they fabricate their own gossip updates. The latest insertion of foot into mouth from the unfortunate Paula Froelich, next on “Countdown.”
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
OLBERMANN: Actors speaking out. That‘s one thing. An actor actually appearing in a political commercial, that‘s a new level. John Cusack joins us.
But first, “Countdown‘s” number two story, tonight‘s Worst Persons in the World.
The bronze, former unconfirmed U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, telling John Gibson, apparently on the streets since John doesn‘t have a TV show anymore, that the election of Barack Obama, quote, “Will simply be a replay of the Clinton administration. It will simply have more embassy bombings, more bombings of our warships like the Cole, more World Trade Center attacks. That will be the best outcome from that perspective.”
Mr. Unconfirmed Ambassador, I don‘t know how to break this to you, but the World Trade Center attacks occurred on September 2001, your watch, Mr. Bush‘s administration, not Mr. Clinton‘s. This crew will blame George Bush. Sorry.
Our Runner up, Chris Wallace, of Fixed News. speaking at Thousand Oaks, California, according to coverage in the local paper there, “The Acorn,” he, quote, “distanced himself from right wing Fox shows hosted by Bill O‘Reilly and Sean Sanity by calling them opinion shows and said that, unlike MSNBC‘s fiery liberal, Keith Olbermann, O‘Reilly and Hannity are never permitted to anchor newscasts.”
Chris, you‘re 60. Stop being naive. Everything on FOX is an opinion show and, of course, FOX permits them to anchor newscasts. They let O‘Reilly anchor on primary nights. They let Hannity & Colmes anchor on primary nights. They let you anchor on primary nights.
Paula Froelich, of the gossip section of Rupert Murdoch‘s “New York Post,” who‘s writers are divided into those who have been found taking bribes and those that have not yet been found taking bribes. As we told you last night, she made up a story about Chris Matthews and me seeking to succeed our friend, the late Tim Russert. Even as a work of fiction, it was pretty dam weak. They had Chris lobbying for the job at the reception after Tim‘s memorial service, which not only isn‘t true, but which only somebody working for Rupert Murdoch would be classless and self destructive enough to do.
Her hallucination had me threatening to quit if I didn‘t get the job, which not only isn‘t true but, as I said last night, does not account for the fact that I am not qualified for Tim Russert‘s job.
Mr. Froelich, however, knowingly and maliciously printed the falsehoods and has now had Bill Hoffman make something else up. He‘s another staffer at page 6, who‘s writers are divided into those who have been found taking bribes and those that have not yet been found taking bribes. Mr. Hoffman was told to make something up for tomorrow‘s paper about my supposed recent diagnosis of Witmack Echbaum‘s Syndrome (ph), a neurological condition in which sleep is sometimes interrupted by odd nerve sensations in the limbs. He‘s been told to talk about the sexual side effects of a new drug prescribed for the disease and to make up something about whether or not the drug is affecting me, which gives him a hobby. But unfortunately, with dead on inaccuracy—has nothing to do with me, since my diagnosis was not recent. It was in the mid-1990s. And I‘ve never taken the drug he‘s going to be making stuff up about tomorrow.
Returning to Ms. Froelich meantime, she told an online gossip site, quote, “Perhaps, Keith, who is as infantile as he is narcissistic, should preach to his viewers about things that actually matter to him rather than himself. But then again, there are only 300,000 of them.”
Actually, we had 2,202,000 viewers last night and every time you‘ve written about me, that number has gone up. So congratulations to Paula and the “Post” for getting yet one more thing wrong by a factor of 1,900,000.
And congratulations on the “Post‘s” daily circulation of nearly 725,000. Well, there‘s been a toilet paper shortage lately.
Paula Froelich, of the “New York Post,” nearly one day without a factual accident, today‘s Worst Person in the World.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
OLBERMANN: He‘s acted in at least 57 films, produced eight of them and produced three, but on our number one story on the “Countdown,” John Cusack now has a new role—political polemicist. He joins us presently.
First, his debut commercial for MoveOn.org.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN CUSACK, ACTOR & FILM PRODUCER: Do you think you can tell him apart? Pop quiz. Who supports the bipartisan bill of rights to support them when they return home? Who tried to privatize our Social Security and opposed health care for uninsured children last year? And the answer is both. Go to MoveOn.org and take the Bush-McCain challenge. Bet you can‘t tell them apart.
ANNOUNCER: MoveOn.Org Political Action is responsible for the content of this advertisement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: That ad, released just months after the premier of Cusack‘s new film, “War, Inc.” set in the fictional Terakistan (ph), where tanks carry advertising banners, journalists are confined to the Emerald City, the movie satires the enormous influence that companies like Halliburton and Blackwater have in Iraq. Indeed, the fictional corporation that runs Terakistan (ph) is itself run by a former vice president of the United States, who, in publishing or push, rather, for his company‘s latest big sale in that war-torn country, is a familiar rational, “It‘s our big launch, bringing democracy to this part of the world. Plus, now that we‘ve bombed the blank out of them, well, there‘s a lot of building to do.”
As promised, we‘re joined by John Cusack who is in London.
Thanks for you time tonight, John.
CUSACK: Thanks for having me. I‘m a big fan of the show.
OLBERMANN: Thank you for your time this evening.
We‘ll get to the film in a moment but, first, this ad. Acting is one thing producing is one thing. Interview‘s one thing. There are protests, but protests are still art. Why go to a situation where, you know, the MoveOn ad is literally and utterly you out there?
CUSACK: Well, you know, I‘ve been sort of politically active in the same way I think for a long time. And I think maybe in 2008, if you‘re not going to be an activist now, I don‘t know when you ever are going to be. And I think we‘re in a place now where—if torture if a for-profit business, if the Bush administration and the Republican ideology that it represents is going to outsource interrogation and the very core functions of state and military, and if we‘re so far down the rabbit hole that that‘s true, I think your conscience dictates that you speak out. So in this case, I agreed with MoveOn and everything I said in the ad is true. So I‘m happy to do it.
OLBERMANN: Well said. I need to welcome you to this vast society of fear mongering smear merchants or smear mongering fear merchants, and whatever we‘re called. Bill O‘Reilly has attacked you, said this is propaganda. Just swing away. What‘s your reaction?
CUSACK: Well, you know, it‘s—as I said, if you‘re not going to speak out now—I think maybe when folks like that attack you it means that you‘re probably somewhere close to the truth. And as I said before, when asked about that, you beat his head in every night. So I think it would be just piling on, to be honest.
I wouldn‘t know where—where would one begin?
OLBERMANN: Don‘t blame his condition on my beating his head in. He came to us this way.
When celebrities and performers get involved in politics, obviously there can be an impact. You know, the obvious example, Oprah Winfrey with Barack Obama. Is there any concern that they sometimes blow back, that it could be hurtful to a candidate or to a cause?
CUSACK: Yeah. I think when you say something is as important as what you say in some ways. And I certainly wouldn‘t want a lecture the electorate or American people about anything.
But on the same token, I have a right to speak out and speak my mind and democracy requires participation. And some things are so egregious and I think that this administration, as you‘ve chronicled it for seven years, as been so criminal and lawless that I think morality compels you to speak. So I think what you say is important, but when you say it is also important. And I felt now is the time to say it.
OLBERMANN: Reality versus fiction. In the film you play an assassin who has gone to Terakistan (ph) to protect the corporation‘s oil interest by killing a Middle Eastern oil executive who wants to build his own pipeline. Given that, it‘s kind of—it seems far fetched. and then comes the news this week that four U.S. oil companies are now on the verge of getting back into Iraq to manage the Iraqi oil 36 years after Saddam Hussein nationalized their wells. There‘s such a blur here. Anytime somebody gets a good imaginative idea on how to satirize this war, it seems like the Bush administration beats you to it.
CUSACK: Yeah. It‘s very true, you know. In a way I think what satire and absurdity does is take the current trends to their logical conclusions. Even if you go out there on the limb and get way out there and stay out there, it‘s hard to stay ahead of this crew.
This is such a corrupt ideology. And it‘s been such a disaster and I really think that this idea that government really—the job of government is to preside over a corporate feeding frenzy and give total liberations for corporations. And that‘s the core of Heritage Foundation and Cato and the Project for the New American Century. Many of the signatories on that are now working for John McCain. So it‘s the same—it‘s the same crew. They go in this revolving door between corporations and the government and, you know, it‘s a pretty dark reality. So I agree.
OLBERMANN: Are you hopeful—and I say this as a precursor to showing this tape again, which you‘ll see on a five-second delay from Raleigh, North Carolina this afternoon. First off, we have the “Newsweek” poll that shows Obama is up 15 points after one month of a general campaign.
Let‘s play this tape, boys. This is President Bush‘s arrival in Raleigh, North Carolina. And he waves to the two guys who are waiting to see him and they don‘t even move. There‘s no reaction whatsoever.
When you see something like this, are you encouraged, are you hopeful about the state of the United States?
CUSACK: You know, I‘m—I am hopeful about it. And I—that‘s pretty funny. Yep, that‘s our president.
I am hopeful about it, but I do think that, you know, we have to call on all well-meaning Libertarians, Republicans and Democrats to sort of expose and shame the last seven years. And I do think if the Democrats say impeachment is off the table, I think that‘s very troubling. So I do—I think that if that sends out a signal that the rule of law doesn‘t mean anything if we‘re within striking distance of the White House.
And I think you have to also take a hard look at Democrats and not only the people who have stood by and enabled George Bush, but also the Democrats who would allow this to continue and allow these crimes to stand. I think that‘s deeply, deeply troubling as well.
But to give you a more coherent answer, I do—I am still optimistic. And I do think Obama‘s going to win. And I think the country‘s going to change, which I‘m grateful, grateful for.
OLBERMANN: John Cusack, actor and activist. We are grateful for you staying up late with us here in London. Good luck and safe travels.
CUSACK: Yeah, I‘m always happy to have an excuse to be incoherent so it‘s late at night, but...
OLBERMANN: Take care.
CUSACK: Thanks, Keith.
OLBERMANN: That‘s “Countdown” for this, the 1,878th day since the declaration of mission accomplished in Iraq. I‘m Keith Olbermann. Good night and good luck.
Friday, June 20, 2008
| [+/-] |
Transcript of 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for June 20, 2008 |
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
| [+/-] |
On Hardball with Chris Matthews, April 10, 2007 |
Guests Clarence Page, Al Sharpton, Sabiyha Prince, Deforest Soaries talk with Guest Host, David Gregory
Transcript of Hardball for April 10, 2007:
Good evening. I‘m David Gregory, in tonight again for Chris. NBC News and CBS radio have suspended radio talk show host Don Imus for two weeks starting April 16, condemning his racist and sexist comments about the Rutgers women‘s basketball team. This morning, Imus appeared on NBC‘s “Today” and again apologized.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP):DON IMUS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I am going to apologize to them and ask them for their forgiveness. I don‘t expect that, and I don‘t think they have any obligation to either forgive me or to accept my apology.
GREGORY: As we mentioned, today the young women at the center of the controversy, the Scarlet Knights, told reporters they will, indeed, meet with Don Imus. Later, we are going to talk with the Reverend Al Sharpton about the controversy and also take a larger look at this incident and what it says about race relations and decency in our country.
But first the background and HARDBALL‘s David Shuster with this report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE):DAVID SHUSTER, HARDBALL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It was the announcement from the Rutgers women‘s basketball team that Don Imus had been hoping for.
ESSENCE CARSON, RUTGERS BASKETBALL PLAYER: We have agreed to have a meeting with Mr. Don Imus. This meeting will be a private meeting at an undisclosed location in the near future.
SHUSTER: That means Imus will get an opportunity to explain and apologize in person for the comments he made last week on his broadcast.
IMUS: Oh, some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Some hard-core ho‘s.
IMUS: That‘s some nappy-headed ho‘s there, I‘m going to tell you that!
(LAUGHTER)
C. VIVIAN STRINGER, RUTGERS WOMEN‘S BASKETBALL COACH: It‘s not about the Rutgers women‘s basketball, it‘s about women. Are women ho‘s? Think about that. Would you have wanted your daughter to have been called that?
PAGE: Yesterday, NBC News announced that the simulcast of Imus‘s radio program on MSNBC will be suspended for two weeks starting next Monday because this week, the show is conducting a charity telethon. Imus reacted this morning on the “Today” show.
IMUS: I think it‘s appropriate, and I an going to try to serve it with some dignity and—a lot of dignity, if I can. I‘ve had a long relationship going back to 1971 with people at NBC and a long relationship with CBS. And when I talked with Phil Griffin last evening and he told me that he was—they were suspending me, I expressed to him that—how I felt about that and accepted it in the spirit in which it was—in which it was rendered.
SHUSTER: But when pressed by Matt Lauer about a pattern of racial humor on his program, Imus was defensive.
IMUS: This is a comedy show. I‘m not a newsman. This is not “Meet the Press.” We don‘t—anything we say—it‘s not an excuse, but context is important. There‘s a difference between premeditated murder and a gun going off accidentally. I mean, somebody still gets shot, but the charges are dramatically different.
SHUSTER: And Imus insisted his comments about the Rutgers team were not intended to be offensive.
IMUS: But it was comedy. It wasn‘t a malicious rant. I wasn‘t angry. I wasn‘t drunk. I wasn‘t stating some sort of philosophy. As I said yesterday morning, I‘m not a racist, I‘m—and I‘ve demonstrated that in my deeds, in my work. And if we can only cite three or four instances in a comedy program...
MATT LAUER, “TODAY”: Well, wait a second, Don...
IMUS: ... which is designed to push the envelope over 30 years—you know—what I did is made a stupid, idiotic mistake in a comedy context.
LAUER: Well, let me...
IMUS: I didn‘t open the microphone to say, This is what I think of these Rutgers women.
LAUER: Let me put it this way...
IMUS: Does it mean I should be excused for the remark? Absolutely not.
SHUSTER: Also on the “Today” show this morning, Reverend Al Sharpton, who has called for Imus to be fired.
REV. AL SHARPTON, NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK: What precedent are we setting now, that you can apologize every 10 years when you go over the line and maybe you‘ll get a two-week suspension? I think that this is something that is unhealthy for everyone in America, and he should be fired.
SHUSTER: Despite the joint appearance on the “Today” show, Don Imus attacked Sharpton for declining an invitation to appear on Imus‘s program following an Imus appearance yesterday on Sharpton‘s broadcast.
IMUS: I talked to Reverend Sharpton yesterday for two hours, Matt, and I told Phil Griffin and everybody else that I didn‘t intend—I invited Reverend Sharpton to appear on my program, and he didn‘t have the courage that I had.
SHARPTON: No, I decided I would not...
IMUS: Because I walked—I‘m talking, Reverend Sharpton!
(CROSSTALK)
IMUS: I walked in his studio yesterday, and there were hundreds of people there. And my hands weren‘t shaking and I don‘t get up and run out of the studio every five minutes when the mikes went off. I sat there and I talked to Reverend Horgans (ph) like a man—Reverend Sharpton like a man, and he did not keep his word. I asked him to appear on my program. He said he didn‘t want to appear at the scene of the crime!
SHUSTER: As for Imus‘s request to meet with the Rutgers women...
IMUS: And I am going to apologize to them and ask them for their forgiveness. I don‘t expect that, and I don‘t think they any obligation to either forgive me or to accept my apology.
SHUSTER: The Rutgers players said they would wait to hear what Imus said before making any judgments, but they added that Imus has a lot of explaining to do.
HEATHER ZURICH, RUTGERS BASKETBALL PLAYER: And we were insulted, and yes, we were angry. Worst of all, my team and I did nothing to deserve neither Mr. Imus nor Mr. McGuirk‘s deplorable comments.
PAGE: A few of the players noted that the language used by Imus is used every day by some African-American hip-hop and rap artists. But the players quickly added...
CARSON: But that doesn‘t make it any more right for anyone to say it, not only Mr. Imus, but if I were to say it, it doesn‘t make it any more right. It doesn‘t matter if you‘re African-American or whether you‘re Caucasian, Asian. It really doesn‘t matter. All that matters is that it‘s wrong.
SHUSTER: But will they accept Imus‘s apology?
MATEE AJAVON, RUTGERS BASKETBALL PLAYER: Right now, I cant really say if we—you know, we have come to a conclusion of, you know, whether we will accept the apology. What I can say is that I think this meeting will be crucial.
SHUSTER (on camera): Amidst the ongoing protests against Don Imus and the questions about whether journalists, including those at this network, will continue to appear on his program, Imus today pledged to make changes. He said he would revamp his show, put on more African-American guests and talk more about issues of race.
I‘m David Shuster for HARDBALL in Washington.
GREGORY: David, thank you very much.
We go now to “The Chicago Tribune‘s” Clarence Page and “The Congressional Quarterly‘s” Craig Crawford. Welcome to you both. Thanks for being here.
I want to read a couple of things, Clarence, and then have you respond. Gwen Ifill, a colleague of ours who works for PBS, used to work for NBC News, wrote the following in a very thoughtful op-ed piece in “The New York Times.” Quote, “The sincerity”—and she‘s talking about the sincerity from Imus—“seems forced and suspect because he‘s done some version of this”—these comments, she means—“several times before.”
Next, this is an exchange you had with the I-man on his program back in 2000, and I‘m going to read through it for our audience and for you to see. Imus—this is—you introduced the idea of him taking a pledge here.
CLARENCE PAGE, “CHICAGO TRIBUNE”: Want me to do my part here?
(LAUGHTER)
GREGORY: “I, Don Imus”—Clarence Page—“do solemnly swear,” “do solemnly swear,” “that I will promise to cease all simian references to black athletes,” “that I will promise to cease all simian references”—he repeats it—“a ban on all references to non-criminal blacks as thugs, pimps, muggers and Colt 45 drinkers,” “I promise to do that.”
Clarence Page, you‘re here with us now. There was some laughter in the middle of this, but this was a serious...
PAGE: That was Bernard.
(LAUGHTER)
PAGE: That was Bernard in the background, yes.
GREGORY: This was a serious point you were making.
PAGE: Yes, it was, and I wanted to lighten it up a bit because this is a light show. You know, part of the problem here, David, is that Don‘s successful. He gets it both ways. He‘s a combination shock jock and morning political discussion leader.
GREGORY: Right.
PAGE: You know, he says he is—you know, he is an entertainer, not a newsman, but you know, he...
GREGORY: All right, but the point is...
PAGE: He does both.
(CROSSTALK)
PAGE: And so that‘s why I...
GREGORY: ... serious in making this pledge.
PAGE: That‘s why I wanted to get this in the right spirit of the program because at the time, this was the subject of—what, it was Tompaine.com had run a big piece about why are Washington‘s pundits supporting bigotry on Don Imus. They ran a quarter page ad in “The New York Times” op-ed page. And it quoted me saying, Well, I‘m concerned. I‘d like to talk to Don about this...
(CROSSTALK)
PAGE: So that‘s what led to all this.
GREGORY: All right. And now these comments, “nappy-headed ho‘s” is what he called these young women on the basketball team at Rutgers.
PAGE: Right.
GREGORY: Is he a racist or a serial offender, or both? What, in your mind?
PAGE: I like Don Imus personally. I can‘t read his heart and say if he‘s a racist. All I know is he says racist things from time to time. That‘s what I told him back in 2001, as he was telling me he wasn‘t a racist, et cetera. Gwen‘s right. There are echoes in his current series of apologies to what he was saying in 2001, on various other occasions.
Don‘s done some great things for a lot of black folks, for people of color, including me. When my book came out in ‘96, he gave me the kind of promo on the air there during his show that authors hunger for. I have nothing personally against him, but I have certainly been on the air talking about his racially inflammatory humor on the show, him and Bernard. It‘s all part of the package. So this is not new.
Now, you know, my old daddy always said, Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Now that, you know, he‘s gone back on that pledge, I‘m even more troubled than I was before.
GREGORY: Craig Crawford, is it time for Imus to go?
CRAIG CRAWFORD, “CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY,” MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST:
Not at all. I don‘t see how that helps anything. I would say this man—you know, in my experience on the show—I‘ve done it nearly 70 times in the last three years—this—his heart is as big as his mouth, and the mouth gets him in trouble, as it has now.
(LAUGHTER)
CRAWFORD: And I think there‘s an opportunity here. I was struck by how these students, these Rutgers students—they were so reasonable and calm and willing to listen and try to understand, hard as it might be for them, what his motivations were. And they are going to meet with him. And tell you the truth, I think a lot of us adults who are talking about this ought to just step back and let these 20-year-olds...
GREGORY: All right, well, so...
(CROSSTALK)
GREGORY: ... if this is a positive meeting—I mean, Don Imus—we both know him, we all know him—Certainly sounds contrite to me, that he gets it. This is going to be a tough meeting. Does this gesture mean something important, Clarence?
PAGE: Oh, it means that he has escalated things. And so has the public, in my view. You know, I haven‘t been invited back on the show, by the way, since the pledge, so I can‘t—I haven‘t had further discussions with him.
GREGORY: Do you think that was the reason?
PAGE: Maybe you got my slot, Craig.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
GREGORY: Is that a reaction to that? Did he feel embarrassed by that?
PAGE: I have no idea, you know?
(CROSSTALK)
PAGE: ... when he broke some bones on the ranch, I sent him a get well card, but I haven‘t talked to him, though, since I was on the show. And I mean, what‘s important is not whether I‘m on the show or not. I think what‘s important here is the show itself and how it‘s conducted. The fact is, he‘s gotten away with more than a lot of other shock jocks have in terms of—the Greaseman, used to be here in D.C., and various others lost their jobs over just one case like this.
And now finally—you know, he thought he was going to get by with the one apology last Friday. As of Monday, he was apologizing all day long, going to Al Sharpton‘s confessional, if you will. And obviously, you know, for CBS and NBC to drop him for two weeks, it‘s a slap on the wrist in one sense, but the fact that it‘s kind of a slap at all is serious. It shows that there‘s some teeth behind this, as there should be.
GREGORY: But Craig, you feel a little bit differently here. You think that people are overblowing this, that he‘s apologized, that we should move on.
CRAWFORD: I think in the context of this show—I know, as you know say, that much of it is serious commentary. And when they do the sports, as they were doing here, that‘s where you see more to the comedy elements, some of the skits they do. It‘s not just racial. We see jokes about Catholics, about Jewish people, gays, I mean, and my argument would be that when you stifle that kind of speech, when you stifle it, you‘re not dealing with the sentiment behind it. And to actually say someone should be fired for making jokes about this kind of stuff doesn‘t really get us down the road toward discussing what‘s behind it and how—how...
PAGE: I‘m not calling for his firing, but if he were fired, what would happened, Craig?
CRAWFORD: Well, I think he‘d become a martyr and...
PAGE: What would happen, Craig? He‘d get a job someplace else, wouldn‘t he.
CRAWFORD: Yes, probably.
PAGE: Of course he would. Of course he would.
CRAWFORD: And—and...
PAGE: Or he‘d go to satellite like Howard Stern.
(CROSSTALK)
CRAWFORD: ... is better off if Imus goes forward, if he gets to know these students, they get to know him. When he takes up a cause, as we all know, he puts his heart into it. I think he will here, not just to save his job, but I think he‘s—I disagree with Gwen. I think his—his remorse is genuine, and I think he will go forward and take up this cause and do some things that will make a big difference, more of a difference than if he were fired.
PAGE: That would be great, but let‘s not feel sorry for Don. I mean, Don Imus is a really—if he wasn‘t as successful as he is, NBC, CBS—you know, well, how about two weeks, Don? I mean, that‘s what it looks like to me. I don‘t see him being severely punished. But I think that he is contrite, and I think he does want to do good. And he has done good with his ranch, with the kids out there who have cancer, autistic kids. All of this...
GREGORY: Is there room for...
PAGE: As I told him, that doesn‘t give you a license to...
(CROSSTALK)
GREGORY: Is there room for him to refashion this program in a way that can heal this wound?
PAGE: Well, I don‘t know if it has to be refashioned necessarily. But I just think you can‘t have it both ways. You know, I think it‘s—the fair thing is for—if you‘re going to try to be a shock jock, you ought to be treated like a shock jock. That‘s what happens. And—but he does bring on great, reputable folks like Craig and various others, you know, who help to give him some credibility, and he helps to expand our audiences and all. You know, everybody wins in that arrangement. But you know, a host should not embarrass people who appear on the show. And when you go and embarrass yourself in this kind of a fashion, he‘s now put people who want to appear on the show on the spot. I understand Cal Ripken‘s dropped out of an engagement...
CRAWFORD: Yes, I—I think—you know, two things. You know,
first, I think, you know, getting into the—you know, the actual words
that he used, he was wrong and he should be punished for that and is being
punished. But I think further discussion as he goes down the road on this
you know, some of these terms, particularly the term “ho,” comes from gangsta rap.
PAGE: That‘s right.
CRAWFORD: And that needs to be condemned...
(CROSSTALK)
PAGE: And it is, too.
CRAWFORD: ... and discussed...
PAGE: I just did a column last Sunday I commend to your attention...
(CROSSTALK)
PAGE: ... Sharpton has, too, Jesse Jackson...
(CROSSTALK)
CRAWFORD: You know, that is a discussion I think whites and blacks need to have, rather than just saying someone should be fired for having said that. I think to be a racist, you have to hate black people, and I do not believe Don Imus hates black people.
GREGORY: I‘m going to let that be the last word. Thank you very much, to Clarence Page and Craig Crawford.
Coming up, the Reverend Al Sharpton. We‘ve been talking about him.
He is calling for Don Imus to be fired, and he‘s coming right here next.
You‘re watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP):KIA VAUGHN, RUTGERS BASKETBALL PLAYER: I‘m not a ho. And at that, I‘m a woman, and I‘m someone‘s child, and you know, it hurts a lot. It does hurt. And there‘s a lot that should be said. There‘s a lot that I want to say, but you know, you can‘t say it. And I would like to speak to him personally and, you know, express how I feel face to face and ask him, After you‘ve met me as a person, do you feel in this category that I‘m still a ho, as a woman and as a black African-American woman, at that? I achieved a lot, and unless they have given this name, a ho, a new definition, then that is not what I am.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP):IMUS: I am going to apologize to them and ask them for their forgiveness. I don‘t expect that, and I don‘t think they have any obligation to either forgive me or to accept my apology.
GREGORY: Welcome back to HARDBALL. That, of course, Don Imus on the “Today” program this morning, apologizing once again for his comments about the Rutgers women‘s basketball team. On Monday, he sat down with Reverend Al Sharpton to apologize on the reverend‘s radio program. And Reverend Al Sharpton joins us now. Welcome.
SHARPTON: Thank you.
GREGORY: Imus has apologized, and now the Rutgers lady basketball team will meet with him. What has to come out of that meeting for you to be satisfied?
SHARPTON: It‘s not about coming out of the meeting. I think that that‘s a private meeting is between he and those that he victimized with his statements. Our drive, from National Action Network and other organizations, is to deal with how the airwaves and those that use them must be accountable. That will not be impacted by a private meeting. That will be impacted by how the stations, how advertisers and how FCC deals with the policy of the airwaves.
GREGORY: But Reverend, you said on your program yesterday you were eager to see what the outcome of that meeting was.
SHARPTON: No. He said he wanted to be forgiven and he did not want to be perceived as racist. I said, I‘ll see what happens in that meeting. I did not say that would determine how we would deal with dealing with the airwaves and how they ought to be policed. That‘s absurd.
GREGORY: All right.
Your view on the suspension by NBC News and CBS Radio is what?
SHARPTON: I think that it is too little and I think it‘s too late.
We must remember that Mr. Imus made these statements Wednesday. Had the groups not raised this by Friday and over the weekend, I doubt if any action would have been taken at all. He barely apologized the day after. Then, he got a little more specific Friday. He really did not start apologizing until we raised public attention. And that is the point.
We cannot allow the airwaves to be used in a blatantly sexist and racist way, and unless somebody catches you, it‘s all right.
GREGORY: All right.
SHARPTON: When you heard today those young ladies talk about how this hurt them, how this will affect them the rest of their lives, I mean, it is amazing to me how people will sit up and just objectively discuss somebody else‘s pain.
GREGORY: Reverend, let‘s—let‘s—you have called for him to be fired—you just reiterated that now—taken off the airways.
Listen to what Imus said this morning during your appearance, your joint appearance, on the “Today” program, about what changes he would make to his program.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “THE TODAY SHOW”):DON IMUS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I have a record of a—of a relationship with the African-American community, whether Reverend Sharpton likes it or not.
I am a—I am a good and decent person. And I have been conducting a comedy show for 30 years. I can come back, and serve, hopefully—will hopefully serve this—the suspension with dignity, and come back and create a dialogue.
One of the things that we‘re going to—that we‘re—we‘re going to do, that we have been talking about for years...
MATT LAUER, CO-HOST: Quickly, if you can, Don. I‘m running out of time.
IMUS: There ought to be a black person on this show every single day to add some perspective. And—and we ought to have more black guests. And—and me and the rest of white America ought to understand what is going on in the black community. And I will make an effort to do that.
GREGORY: Reverend, if—if Don Imus could make good on that commitment, would you support him staying on the air?
SHARPTON: First of all, he made the same pledge, as you just said, with Clarence Page. I mean, why don‘t we just play his last apology and last confession, and he wouldn‘t have to get up so early in the morning and do “The Today Show”?
Second of all, am I supposed to applaud, after 30 years, he says, let‘s put a black in the studio? I mean, what are we talking about here?
This is not about Imus. This is about accountability on the airwaves.
GREGORY: No. OK, I take that point. But is this also not an opportunity to put the issues that you care about, confronting this kind of racist talk and sexist talk, on the public airwaves, with a huge, large platform? Can you see him playing a positive role? And if—if—NBC and CBS does not listen to you, and he stays on the air, would you agree to be part of his program, as a commentator?
SHARPTON: I think the—I think the larger—No, I would not.
The largest—or the larger stage, the larger picture, I think, cannot include that, if someone misuses the airwaves, that all they have to do is make a tour of apologies, and then it‘s business as usual.
I—I—I see people sincerely struggling to try and come and set a bigger picture here, but they can‘t put in the picture there‘s no penalty for the racist, sexist use of the airways. That is what everyone seems to miss. This is not about Imus. This is about accountability and a standard on the airwaves that protects citizens from those airways being used in a racist, biased, sexist manner.
GREGORY: Let me ask you a question, based on your standing in the community, as a politician, as a former candidate for the presidency. Do you believe in redemption?
SHARPTON: Oh, absolutely.
I think that there has to be redemption. I have—as I said this morning on “The Today Show,” a man of a different race, a white man, stabbed me once for leading a nonviolent march. I not only forgave him. I went to jail and met with him and forgave him. But I didn‘t say he shouldn‘t pay for the crime.
There‘s a difference between redemption and amnesty. A lot of people are not talking about redemption. They‘re talking about amnesty.
GREGORY: But, in your case, as critics would point out, you didn‘t go as far as Imus in a controversy that had to do with you and the Tawana Brawley case, a woman who the court...
SHARPTON: Nor did I castigate a whole race of people.
GREGORY: I‘m sorry. If I could...
(CROSSTALK)
GREGORY: Sir, can I...
SHARPTON: Nor did I castigate a whole race of people.
(CROSSTALK)
GREGORY: I just want to finish the question.
You—you didn‘t go as far as apologizing to the people who you hurt through that incident. This was, the courts have concluded, a hoax, accusations against whites by a young black woman about a race-based assault. A court ordered you to pay restitution for a defamation suit against people‘s whose reputation you hurt. You didn‘t apologize for that.
SHARPTON: And I still don‘t apologize. This was a case, as you said, of a young lady accusing people of doing something to her.
To compare that to a man castigating a whole race—nobody came to him, like this young lady came to me. He was not talking about did he believe in a case.
So, the—to the extremes people will go to compare an individual case, a civil case that, when the courts ruled...
GREGORY: Right. I‘m not—but, Reverend, I‘m not comparing the cases.
SHARPTON: Wait a minute. You wanted me to let you...
GREGORY: I just wanted to ask the question.
SHARPTON: You wanted me to let you ask it. Let me answer.
GREGORY: OK.
SHARPTON: And to compare that shows how far people will reach. This man was not talking about a specific case, with some information somebody gave him, whether you believe the information or not.
This man was talking about a race of people and a sex of people. There is absolutely no comparison. And, when the courts ruled against us, we paid that. That case happened 20 years ago. We‘re not talking about that.
What you are talking about is—is maligning a race, and him not having to pay for it.
GREGORY: Well, I‘m not—I am not talking about it. The question has to do with...
SHARPTON: Oh, I thought you were the one talking.
GREGORY: ... redemption.
SHARPTON: Maybe somebody else...
(CROSSTALK)
GREGORY: No, sir, I don‘t think that is not fair to talk about that I‘m talking amnesty. I am asking a question about your belief in redemption and people whose reputations you hurt, people that you hurt...
SHARPTON: Well, if I felt...
(CROSSTALK)
GREGORY: ... that you haven‘t apologized for.
SHARPTON: If I felt—if I believed...
GREGORY: And you are a strong person in middle of this debate.
SHARPTON: If I believed that young lady was telling the truth, as I do, what am I apologizing for?
And how do you compare that to a man condemning a whole race? Did I go and condemn a whole race of people? Or did we say we believed this young lady‘s statement about an individual? I don‘t how you even compare the two.
GREGORY: All right.
We‘re going to take a break here, the Reverend Al Sharpton staying with us—when we come back, questions about the larger questions raised by this incident.
Then, coming up later: a look at race relations in this country, how far we still have to go.
You are watching HARDBALL on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GREGORY: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
We are back with the Reverend Al Sharpton.
Reverend, I have got just about a minute-and-a-half here. But I want to ask you a larger question.
If there is a national conversation that has started as a result of this incident, what is it and what should it be?
SHARPTON: I think the national conversation should be, how do we hold those that use the public airways accountable?
I think people have the right to free speech. I think we have the right to free comedy. I do not think they can use public airways recklessly. I do not that think we can have regulators in government that call some things indecent and other things permissible.
We need to have a conversation on what is permitted. And I think that this Imus incident will bring us to that conversation.
GREGORY: Imus challenged you during the “Today” program today about taking on the black community, about where the kind of language like “ho” originates in the hip-hop culture.
He may be an imperfect vehicle to bring that point up to you, in—in your estimation, in a lot of people‘s estimation.
Is that a fair point? And what can you do to advance that, to challenge the black community on that—on the use of that language within the black community, within the hip-hop community?
SHARPTON: The only reason it is not fair is because we have been dealing with that for some time.
I have been one that has been very vocal, as I think was stated in the segment earlier by Clarence Page and them, about the use of the N-word, the use of ho by people of my own community. I—I was one that was very upset with the movie “Barbershop” that denigrated black icons like Rosa Parks.
I only think him challenging me showed that he has not been in touch with what is going on. I think that there is a place that we need to have that discussion. It is wrong for anybody to call anyone a ho. It is wrong for anybody to use the N-word. I think that should not be used as an excuse to cover Imus, because I think, if you don‘t deal with Imus, then you lose the moral authority to join people like me in dealing with some of those bad elements of gangster rap—not all rap, but gangster rap.
You can‘t have it both ways. If you‘re going to join us in saying that these young artists ought to stop it, then you have got join us in stopping Imus.
GREGORY: The Reverend Al Sharpton—Reverend, thank you very much for coming on tonight.
SHARPTON: Thank you.
GREGORY: Up next: the big picture that we have been talking about.
We will talk right here about where we are with race and gender in our current politics and in this country, what role all of this plays in the 2008 election, and more about this conversation that Reverend Sharpton talked about Americans having as a result of this incident—when HARDBALL returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DARBY DUNN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I am Darby Dunn with your CNBC “Market Wrap.”
The Dow Jones industrial average ended higher for an eighth straight session, its longest winning streak in four years. The Dow gained more than four-and-a-half points, the S&P 500 up almost four, and the Nasdaq almost eight-and-a-half.
Dow component Alcoa kicking off earning season after the closing bell, reporting first-quarter profit jumping nearly 9 percent—however, earnings fell short of analyst estimates. In after-hours trading, Alcoa shares are up fractionally.
Oil prices rising slightly today, climbing 38 cents in New York, closing at $61.89 a barrel.
And another sign of woe in the housing market—D.R. Horton, the nation‘s biggest homebuilder, says second-quarter orders are down 37 percent. That is due in part to steep declines in California and the Southwest.
That‘s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide—now back to
HARDBALL.
GREGORY: Welcome back to HARDBALL. I‘m David Gregory, in for Chris tonight.
There are larger questions coming about of the reaction to Don Imus‘ words. What does it tell us about race and decency in our country right now?
In a moment, we‘re going to talk with Reverend DeForest Soaries, who is going to moderate this meeting we have been telling you about between the Rutgers players and Don Imus.
But, first, let‘s bring in “Newsweek”‘s Jonathan Alter, who is an NBC News contributing correspondent. And we are also joined here in the studio by Sabiyha Prince, an anthropology professor at American University.
Welcome to you both, professor Prince and Jonathan Alter.
(CROSSTALK)
SABIYHA PRINCE, ANTHROPOLOGY PROFESSOR, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Hi.
GREGORY: Jonathan, let me start with you.
We talked a little bit earlier on the phone about whether this incident has created a race moment for America. Do you think that is the case? And how would you define that?
JONATHAN ALTER, NBC NEWS CONTRIBUTING CORRESPONDENT: I think it has created what you could call a teachable moment, the same way that, a couple of weeks ago, when Elizabeth Edwards‘ cancer recurred and Tony Snow‘s did, you know, we had a kind of a national conversation about surviving cancer.
And I this does give us a chance to talk about the coarsening of discourse in America, about accountability. As—as Reverend Sharpton said, what does accountability mean? Does it necessarily mean firing the person? Or is sometimes changed behavior enough form of—of accountability?
You know, David, in the YouTube culture that we have now, everything that somebody says is going to get replayed, and replayed again. And the question becomes, what is the response?
And I think something that has happened in the—just in the last couple of years, there has been such a negative reaction against President Bush‘s failure to apologize, failure to seem like he is being accountable to where the people are, that we have got more of a thirst for people apologizing when they screw up, and then changing their behavior as a result of having been called to account.
GREGORY: Professor Prince, let me pose that same question to you.
Is this a moment here, a teachable moment, a race moment, call it what you will?
PRINCE: Well, I think, David, that the history of the United States has been punctuated by a number of race moments.
So, the question becomes, what are we going to do with this, and where do we go from here? I would agree that, if we use this as a chance to perhaps educate America about the history of diverse peoples—for example, taking this Imus case, there‘s a historical context of African-American women being animalized, of African-American men being likened to animals, a dehumanization, if you will.
There is a precedent for that. It has happened on numerous occasions. And, perhaps, if—we can use this opportunity to share with America some of the literature about this context, a broader context, and about the experience of women, and the works of black feminists and other scholars, who have a lot to say on these topics.
GREGORY: It was also something about this incident.
It was not—as—as condemned as it is in—in hip-hop songs and rap music, where these artists talk about hos in a general sense, which has been condemned, this was, unfortunately, the specific application of that term to a group of young women who are exceptional young women, good students, and terrific athletes. And it really sort of woke people up and said, hey, wait a minute. This is really out of bounds.
PRINCE: I agree with you. So this is pointing to issues sexism, as well as racism, and how those things intersect. These are athletes. Haven‘t we not seen in the past women athletes being characterized as not being feminine, as somehow not being women. That is not at all appropriate and we need to get at the root of some of these things.
GREGORY: We have been looking at these pictures of the players and the coach. I want to listen to the Rutgers coach, Vivian Stringer, and what she had to say. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP):VIVIAN STRINGER, RUTGERS WOMEN‘S BASKETBALL COACH: The truth of the matter is that it is not even black and white. The color is green. The color is green. You see, because if we can tolerate as a society what has just taken place, the remarks that have been directed toward young women, I do not know how anyone could have heard this and not been personally hurt and offended.
GREGORY: I also want to bring in the Reverend Deforest Soaries, who will moderate the meeting between Don Imus and the players from Rutgers. Reverend, welcome.
REV. DEFOREST SOARIES, WILL MODERATE IMUS/RUTGERS MEETING: Thank you very much for having me.
GREGORY: Talk about this meeting that is going to occur. You‘ve been talking to Imus. You‘ve been talking to the players and the coach, and the folks at Rutgers. What is going to happen at this meeting?
SOARIES: Well Mr. Imus has confessed, as it were, of his sin or his crime. What seems to be in disagreement is whether or not there should be any sentence. The remarkable outcome of this, from the Rutgers women‘s perspective, is that these young women, 17, 18, 19 years old, see the need to have a dialogue with Mr. Imus.
They could be so bitter or so hurt that they would simply dismiss him or they could be so angry that they would want to retaliate. But they‘ve decided—
GREGORY: To say nothing of their parents, by the way.
SOARIES: I mean, this is a level of maturity that I have not seen in recent years, particularly around very volatile race and gender issues. And so in this meeting Mr. Imus will have a chance to say directly to them what he has said to the public, and that is “I‘m sorry.” He will also have a chance to answer questions that they would like to probe, in terms of who he really is.
He has said it is important for America to know who he is, but it should start with the persons that were victims of his ugly conversation. They then will have an opportunity to share with him exactly how they feel. I have said to Mr. Imus, I am not sure he understands the depth of complexity that he has caused in these ladies‘ lives. This is more than a passing insult. This is a deep stain, which one player said would be a scar for the rest of her life.
We will have a dialogue. He will have an opportunity to express his views; they theirs. And then we will see what the next step should be.
GREGORY: Reverend, we are talking here about whether there is a larger important conversation to have as a country, about the power of words, about decency and about racism. And I think you said on Reverend Sharpton‘s program yesterday that for a lot of black people in this country, this may have been a confirmation to them to their sort of deep cynical belief that white people do not like them. It may have been a kind of ugly confirmation of that.
SOARIES: What‘s interesting is that pundits and leaders have a tendency to think in terms of left and right. And left would be more progressive and liberal. Right would be more conservative. And, in that sense, this becomes an enigma, because Mr. Imus is traditionally identified with the left. And one would have to imagine, how could somebody who supports black children, who supports black causes, who has been a philanthropist, really say those kinds of words and then admit he has no idea from whence they came.
This speaks to a deeper problem that we explore in black America, quite often, and that is that there is a deep fault of racism that exists, and it is like Anthrax. It will kill you, but you can‘t be seen. Every now and then it emerges, and we act surprised, but I think until we have a genuine conversation about gender and race and about green—that‘s what Coach Stringer was trying to get at.
The fact is, in this country, the problem is not race or gender. The problem is that we will do anything to earn a dollar. And if it exploits people or hurts young people, it does not seem to matter as much.
GREGORY: Reverend Soaries, Jonathan Alter, and Dr. Sabiyha Prince all staying with us. We‘re going to take a short break and come back and continue this conversation. You are watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP):BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS ANCHOR: I am the father of a daughter who is in college. I can guess at some of your rage and anger, but I can‘t know all of it. Can you really turn this into a positive and redemption? Can this be the lesson from this, some day?
STRINGER: I hope so. And I think that with all things that are bad, I do not think bad can overcome—I don‘t think that evil can overcome good. These young people are good. What he did was evil. But I need everybody‘s help. We need everybody‘s help.
GREGORY: That was C. Vivian Stringer, the coach of Rutgers, speaking to Brian Williams, who interviewed the players as well as Coach Stringer. You can see more of Brian‘s interview on NBC Nightly News on your NBC station later today.
We are back with “Newsweek‘s” Jonathan Alter, and Professor Sabiyha Prince, and the Reverend Soaries, who will moderate the meeting between Don Imus and the players from Rutgers. Jonathan Alter, you wanted to make a point. Go ahead.
ALTER: Well, I was just going to say that I think there is a kind of an interesting power relationship here that is also come into view. You know, Don Imus is a powerful broadcaster, at least he has been. And he will now be judged and his fate will determined by how these young politically powerless, until now, women react to him. And I think there‘s something that is exquisitely American about that. It is almost like a form of our jury system, where his fate will depend on how these young women react, what their view is toward redemption, towards punishment, towards some of these very complex and deep issues about how we deal with bad behavior and racist words in our society.
GREGORY: Professor Prince, do you think that there is a racial divide, in terms of how people evaluate this?
PRINCE: Undoubtedly, and that is something that I think probably disturbed me perhaps even more than the comments themselves. And what I‘m referring to would be the responses to people, in particular I have to say powerful white people in the media, and in politics, and particularly males. There has been this excuse, this discussion about, well, he is a friend of mine, and I don‘t think he a bad person. And I have to wonder if the ethnic group that was slurred in such a way was not African American, perhaps another group, perhaps another group that has a history of --
GREGORY: Jews, for instance?
PRINCE: That would be a good analogy I think. What would be the response from individuals like John McCain, individuals like Ed Schultz. Barbara Walters, I think, has weighed in. James Carville.
(CROSS TALK)
ALTER: He has done this kind of thing to Jews. I am Jewish. I have heard him call people, you know, in very unflattering terms—refer to our Jewish background. He hasn‘t done it to me, but I have heard him do to other people. It is in the nature of the show, so it is simply not accurate to say that if the show were on the other foot, and he were attacking other ethnic and religious groups, people would react differently.
What is different about this, just so we are really clear, and, I think, why this is really a problem, and why it was such a deplorable thing for him to say, is that on his show, when he goes after people, almost all of the time, it is powerful people in the media, in politics. They can take it. They are public figures. We want that robust debate, even when it does go a little bit over the line.
What is not acceptable is to do it to people who are powerless, who have done nothing wrong and are not public figures.
GREGORY: Reverend Soaries, let me ask you, you have talked to Imus. Do you think he gets it? Do you think he is surprised by some of the reaction or do you think he understands this?
SOARIES: I think he gets it now. The problem is he did not get it then, and when you get it retroactively, you can‘t withdraw the pain. In order to have a civil society, we must have moral consensus. And moral consensus then compels us to call a spade a spade, whether the spade is from our tribe or not.
I think our divide today is not between so much black and white, but between just a generic consensus over what is acceptable and unacceptable in civil society. When African-Americans become as angry about anti-Semitism as we are racism, then I think we are growing up. In America, we have not grown up, and we have allowed profit driven media to drive wedges between us. So we are living below our Homo Sapiens status.
GREGORY: And, Professor Prince, quick reaction to this: Imus‘s claim that has to be seen in the context of comedy.
PRINCE: It think that‘s completely absurd. First of all, he was not funny. So let‘s just start there. Comedy is no excuse to disparage people and to dehumanize people. And so I agree with the reverend that we need to arrive at some sort of standards. And let me just cut off at the knees folks who may want to make comparisons with perhaps the Chris Rocks and the Dave Chappelles. I think we‘re talking a little bit about apples and oranges, because these people are making political commentary and they are speaking historically from a place where people have not had the power to critique white people and to critique white privilege.
GREGORY: I just have to take a quick break here. We will come right back.
(CROSS TALK)
GREGORY: Reverend, I‘m sorry. I‘ve got to take a break here. We have a satellite issue, which is cutting us off a little bit. We‘re going to come back with our guests. You‘re watching HARDBALL on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP):RUDY GIULIANI ®, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: My reaction is it was wrong. It was very wrong. He has acknowledged that. I have to say that I generally feel about things like that, when people make big mistakes like that, what I look to is do they understand it, do they acknowledge it, do they seem to be really sorry for it, and are they going to make a pledge not to do it again. He seems to have done those things.
GREGORY: Rudy Giuliani today on the campaign trail, talking about Don Imus. I want to thank the Reverend Deforest Soaries, who we‘re going to lose. He‘s got another interview to do. He will moderate a meeting between Don Imus and the Rutgers women‘s basketball team. “Newsweek‘s” Jonathan Alter and American University Professor Sibiyha Prince are still with us.
Jonathan, let me start with you. As a kind of concluding point in this conversation, about what this incident tells us about the kind of conversation we need to have as Americans, about race and decency in our politics and in our public discourse. And by that I mean has there been a kind of defining down of decency, that has gone on to the point where it took something like this to be a tipping point to really wake people up and say, this is way out of bounds?
ALTER: Absolutely. You know, what happened is that we had the rise of what was called political correctness in the 1980s, and then there was a backlash against PC behavior. And everybody kind of said -- or lots of people said, hey, lighten up. You know, don‘t go to the ramparts every time somebody said something a little bit offensive or objectionable.
And so that mentality existed in this country for a long time, that
sort of lighten up, anti-PC mentality. Then something like this comes
along, where somebody says something that is not politically incorrect, but
actually much, much, much worst, and it reminds us that that backlash
against PC may have gone too far, and that the people who talk about
sensitivities to language within bounds have a real point. The question is
GREGORY: You know what, I am simply out of time. Jonathan Alter and Sibiyha Prince, thank you very much. Join us again tomorrow night at 5:00 and 7:00 eastern for more HARDBALL. Right now it‘s time for “TUCKER."