<p>Anyone who uses an inflamatory word like LYNCHING in the context of “going after” a BLACK MAN OR WOMAN knows exactly what they are doing. O"Reilly could have used any of thousands of other word but chose to use THAT WORD in his supposed “defense” of Michelle Obama. Anyone who can’t see he is a BIGOT…</p>
<p>
The “it” in this statement is “the truth”. He intends to track down the truth. How do I know what “it” is? Because on many of his shows he points out that he does not engage in rumor reporting unless he can verify that the rumor is true. (In which case the rumor becomes a fact). He regularly uses the phrase “track it down” when saying he intends to do more research. OReilly often claims to be the first one to discover important facts about issues. He claims to be an investigative journalist (or at least has a staff of investigaive journalists).</p>
<p>
I realize you don’t like OReilly, but this example is not support your position against him and it is clear you are wrong. He just did “call out” the lynchers by saying there is no evidence to support their arguments against Michaell Obama.</p>
<p>
Nonsense. Only the politically correct crowd would support that view and Fox News is better than that.</p>
<p>You are treating the word “lynching” as if it is the “N word”. African Americans can say the N word all they want, but if a white person says it that person has to be a racist. OReilly was saying that those who attacked Michelle Obama were attempting a lynching that he would not be a part of. Creating a doule standard for L word is just as stupid as creating a double standard for the N word.</p>
<p>
You just proved my point about the L word. </p>
<p>BTW, it is obvious who you are directing your comment to and I don’t appreciate your insult.</p>
<p>It was an unfortunate choice of words, but I’ll give O’Reilly a nominal pass on this one. I think he was trying to say that it’s best not to jump to conclusions and read too much into what Michelle Obama said. But being that Bill O’Reilly has built his television persona upon appeasing a certain element of rabid conservatism, and its sometimes racist fringe, he had to throw them a bit of red meat too, thus the need to insist that if proof is discovered to erase all doubt about Mrs. Obama’s lack of patriotism, all bets are off. He’s said plenty of things in the past (and no doubt will in the future) which truly qualify as racist. This was relatively minor.</p>
<p>Razor - I’d be (almost) right there with you if he’d said: “And I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama.” His continuation - the unless - means there are circumstances under which he would “go on a lynching party.”</p>
<p>He also did not say there is no evidence - he said he didn’t have it and that he would track it down.</p>
<p>In both cases, distinctions with a difference.</p>
<p>Flip side - I really don’t think he’s a bigot so… Oh well - I’ve been called worse 
I just think, in this case his word choice is so disastrous that he must get out in front of it, own it, and learn from it.</p>
<p>Duke, did you listen to how Oreilly responded to the woman caller? He first used the phrase “tack it down” in response to her. The woman caller had a friend who supposedly spoke with Michelle Obama and said that Obama was a militant woman. Oreilly rejected this and said words to the effect of “we would like to talk to your friend and we will track it down in a fair methocial way; if indeed michelle obama is angry about something and has a history and we can put it in context so we can be fair to everybody.” Oreilly is clearly saying more research needs to be done and that any information against Obama should be put in context so it can be fairly presented. In other words, people should stop jumping to conclusions. In my opinion that is called responsible journalism.</p>
<p>I did - there’s just no contextual support his phrasing in my estimation… I think the core sentiments - that no one should jump to conclusions based on second or third-hand comments and that certain people in the media spotlight get unfairly raked over every coal whenever they do anything that has even the slightest hint of controversy about it.</p>
<p>But as a journalist, to phrase things in such a way that leaves open the possibility of having a “lynching party”? To paraphrase Rush - megayikes.</p>
<p>O’Reilly is such a big jerk that it’s reasonable to assume that any questionable remark he makes arises from his jerkiness. We don’t know enough about Michelle Obama yet to allow us to jump to such conclusions about her.</p>
<p>Ditto Razorsharp. As for this comment…“She is proud of the involvement of people who have never been involved in politics before, or she has been ashamed of the U.S. for the last eight years”…how could anyone think Michelle Obama meant the last 8 years when the words she used were HER ADULT LIFETIME. She said she hasn’t been proud of the US for her entire adult lifetime…until now.</p>
<p>Yikes. I meant ditto to no. 15, and referring to the “8 year” comment above it. Sorry! </p>
<p>Lynching is not the right word to use right now what with the Jena 6 and all, I agree with that. Or at any time really.</p>
<p>Here’s the thing. Both Ms. Obama and Mr. O’Reilly are guilty of choosing their words badly. It’s clear that what Ms. Obama meant was that she is more proud of her country now than she’s ever been, which is fair under her particular circumstances, but didn’t get the words out too well. It’s also clear that Mr. O’Reilly was defending Ms. Obama but, as usual, his mouth got ahead of his head. It’s ludicrous to split such hairs over two small instances of human beings being human beings when no ill intent was intended by either, but politics being a blood sport, have at it.</p>
<p>Not just politics - but also aggrojournalism. The middle ground doesn’t sell copy or commercials, dontcha know.</p>
<p>"Here’s the thing. Both Ms. Obama and Mr. O’Reilly are guilty of choosing their words badly. It’s clear that what Ms. Obama meant was that she is more proud of her country now than she’s ever been, which is fair under her particular circumstances, but didn’t get the words out too well. "</p>
<p>It was a prepared speech, so she can’t use the excuse that it didn’t come out well.</p>
<p>“It was a prepared speech, so she can’t use the excuse that it didn’t come out well.”</p>
<p>It was a poor choice of words, but it was clear what she meant.</p>
<p>The word Citygirlsmom is referring to which is missing from some internet versions of Michelle Obama’s speech was “really” - as in “really proud”. It does seem to make a difference in the meaning of her statement, which is clearer with the modifier intact. I don’t know why that one word is missing from some of the clips.</p>
<p>The words she used were that FOR THE FIRST TIME in her adult lifetime she was (really) proud of her country. Here is the full speech (or that section) and it doesn’t seem to me to indicate that she is “prouder than she’s ever been”. Here’s a link to a video of her giving the speech:</p>
<p>[Breitbart.tv</a> Michelle Obama: ‘For the First Time in My Adult Lifetime, I Am Really Proud of My Country’](<a href=“http://www.breitbart.tv/html/49244.html]Breitbart.tv”>http://www.breitbart.tv/html/49244.html)</p>
<p>Just accentuates the fact that the Obamas are political “newbies” and are in waaaay over their heads in this campaign. Even Hillary has enough savvy to choose her words more wisely. How many more times will they put their feet in their mouths? Next time it might offend another country…</p>
<p>If Obama is elected [God forbid!], someone is going to have to send them to “school” for awhile.</p>
<p>[Ah well, that oughta tick a few people off around here… sorry!]</p>
<p>ZM: I agree with you 100% on this. Poor choice of words on both sides. </p>
<p>I am far more turned off by artificial, overcoached speakers who choose their words carefully so that they:</p>
<p>a) hit all the right buttons to get the right constituencies and
b) don’t get in trouble with any constituency</p>
<p>Oh good grief, bz2010. </p>
<p>The Obamas haven’t shown themselves any more likely to put their foot in their mouth than the Clintons. Bill and HIllary both have track records of saying things that could be called, “unfortunate”, both before and during this race for the nomination. When people who oppose you examine every word that comes out of your mouth, every pause and nuance, every turn of the head, looking for ways they can skewer you, you can be pretty sure you’ll face condemnation over something you’ve either said, or failed to say, sooner or later. There’s just no way around it, no matter who you are, because politics has never been nastier.</p>
<p>Michelle Obama has been wowing audiences, both live and on YouTube, for many months, and has only now come under attack for something she said.</p>
<p>You’re merely seizing upon this incident to “prove” that Obamas aren’t savvy enough occupy the White House because you’re horrified at the prospect. But all it takes is a little review of The Clinton’s recent supposed gaffes to prove how hypocritical you’re being.</p>
<p>Oh, I’m sure there are plenty of gaffs to go around.
What’s interesting is what those gaffs might reveal about the speaker.</p>
<p>BTW, I suppose my previous post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Having a little fun at BO/MO’s expense. Liked your response,tho’.</p>