# Can someone explain why it is controversial that Obama hugged Derrick Bell? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 8, 2012, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140 "2012-03-08T12:26:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/121 "2012-03-11T04:33:35Z")
> [@JQPublic](#): > > everything is costing me more. I want to zero in on this because I keep hearing complaints about inflation, especially from Ron Paul supporters. Do you realise that you can’t find a three and a half year period during the previous (Bush) administration with lower inflation than has occurred during the Obama presidency? And I don’t buy your line that this is why you’re not voting to re-elect Obama. I don’t believe you voted for him in 2008, or that he ever really had a chance to earn your vote. Which is fine, by the way: I voted in my first presidential election in 1988, and I have yet to vote any way but Democratic and can’t imagine that will ever change, even if there’s a Republican president running for reelection in a booming economy or whatever. But just own it, and don’t try to play that disingenuous game, please. > [@JQPublic](#): > > I do believe he belongs to a group of elitists (made up of democrats and republicans) who would like to socialize America but are smart enough to know that they have to do it in small pieces. I would actually agree with that, though I will never understand why so many people are so resistant to the idea of being “socialized” that we do have to take those baby steps. If I thought it was politically feasible, I’d be all for going straight to a system like Sweden’s or Norway’s, ASAP, no hesitation whatsoever. But you’re right: too many Americans are ridiculously suspicious of going in that direction, so we have to be careful not to get them riled up. We’ll get there eventually though! > [@JQPublic](#): > > President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union address again rated at an 8th grade comprehension level on the Flesch-Kincaid readability test — the third lowest score of any State of the Union address since 1934. > > The University of Minnesota’s Smart Politics conducted an analysis on the last 70 State of the Union addresses and found that President Obama’s three addresses have the lowest grade average of any modern president. “Obama’s average grade-level score of 8.4 is more than two grades lower than the 10.7 grade average for the other 67 addresses written by his 12 predecessors,” they conclude. > > Not talking down to us eh? Ha–as Gyrate noted, it’s pretty ironic to accuse him of being “elitist” because his speeches use simpler vocabulary. The guy can’t win with you no matter which way he goes. > [@Marley23](#): > > I don’t remember hearing that, but from a journalistic point of view, it’s not satisfactory. Sure, from a journalistic POV, I agree. But getting to the truth about the president should be more important than The Trial of Dan Rather in the Court of Public Opinion or whatever. And that’s what I mean: once conservatives had blood in the water, they managed to get all the focus on those documents. The fact that you never heard about what the secretary said is exactly the point: the GOP got really lucky that Rather and the fake documents became the story, instead of Bush’s Guard service. I mean, I hope you’d agree that if Bush is actually guilty of what he is charged with in those documents, any malfeasance by Rather or CBS doesn’t actually make Bush magically innocent! Yet I’m the only one I’ve ever met who remembers this important aspect of the story. Anyway, here’s an article about it: > **[THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: NATIONAL GUARD; Memos on Bush Are Fake But Accurate,...](https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/us/the-2004-campaign-national-guard-memos-on-bush-are-fake-but-accurate.html)** > > Marian Carr Knox, secretary for George W Bush's squadron at Texas air base from 1957 to 1979, says she never typed documents in which late Lt Col Jerry B Killian criticizes Bush's conduct and believes they are fakes put together from originals,... > [@](#): > > HOUSTON, Sept. 14 - The secretary for the squadron commander purported to be the author of now-disputed memorandums questioning President Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard said Tuesday that she never typed the documents and believed that they are fakes. > > But she also said they accurately reflect the thoughts of the commander, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, and other memorandums she typed for him about Mr. Bush. “The information in them is correct,” the woman, Marian Carr Knox, now 86, said in an interview at her home here. "But I doubt,‘’ she said, pausing, “it’s not anything that I wrote because there are terms in there that are not used by Guards, the format wasn’t the way we did it. It looks like someone may have read the originals and put that together.” ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/122 "2012-03-11T04:48:34Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I mean, I hope you’d agree that if Bush is actually guilty of what he is charged with in those documents, any malfeasance by Rather or CBS doesn’t actually make Bush magically innocent! I would agree with that. Those documents aren’t proof though, they’re forgeries. You seem to be forgetting that important aspect of the story. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/123 "2012-03-11T05:24:29Z")
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were forgeries. The Piltdown Man was a forgery. These were more similar to facsimiles. Assuming, and I am so assuming, that these were created in the interests of record-keeping, rather than in the interest of political deception. The word “forgery”, in this instance, implies a malefic intent it cannot prove. The secretary who typed them, did she type them the week before she talked to Dan Rather? Or were they typed as part of a routine bureaucratic exercise some time previous? Are we offered to believe that she played a “deep game”, typing this all up well in advance so as to be ready as needed? Back when GeeDubya was such an obviouis shoo-in for the Republican nomination? Some here would prefer that we not examine that word too closely, “forgery”. They are content with the scant comfort it provides. it allows them to pretend that all those stories about what a mediocrity GeeDubya has always been are all made up out of whole cloth. But if GeeDubya was the competent and intelligent man they wish he were, then these would be forgeries, they would be lies. And his story would be different. More importantly, so would ours. Very different. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/124 "2012-03-11T05:34:43Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > The word “forgery”, in this instance, implies a malefic intent it cannot prove. The secretary who typed them, did she type them the week before she talked to Dan Rather? Or were they typed as part of a routine bureaucratic exercise some time previous? Are we offered to believe that she played a “deep game”, typing this all up well in advance so as to be ready as needed? Back when GeeDubya was such an obviouis shoo-in for the Republican nomination? The forgery was not meant with a malefic intent towards Bush the Younger? Really? The secretary did not type the forgeries, according to her own statement. Grow up, **elucidator** , even if every single fact alleged in the forgeries was accurate (as I believe they were), they were still forgeries, and thus not proof. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/125 "2012-03-11T07:30:14Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > …The secretary did not type the forgeries, according to her own statement… For the record, I’ve checked and that is true, in the same interview in which she asserts the essential facts are correct. I misunderstood her meaning, she was referring to other memos she had typed and her presumption that it was those memos which had been copied and forged. > **[The Seattle Times | Local news, sports, business, politics, entertainment,...](https://www.seattletimes.com)** > > Local news, sports, business, politics, entertainment, travel, restaurants and opinion for Seattle and the Pacific Northwest. > [@](#): > > George W. Bush’s commanding officer in the Texas Air National Guard wrote memos more than 30 years ago objecting to efforts to gloss over the young lieutenant’s shortcomings and failure to take a flight physical, the officer’s secretary said last night. > > But Marian Carr Knox of Houston said she thinks four memos unveiled by CBS News last week were forgeries, not the ones she typed at the time… So long as the term “forgeries” is not used to suggest that the essential facts reflected are not true, then I have no problem with it. But it is, loudly, and often. And that, in and of itself, is a lie. > [@](#): > > …Grow up, **elucidator** … Surely there is someone who both wants and needs your advice? Somewhere? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/126 "2012-03-11T15:58:59Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Sure, from a journalistic POV, I agree. This is not a technicality here. The documents that were supposed to prove the story had merit. They were forged, which means there’s no evidence other than somebody’s say-so _and_ the person who was vouching for the story went so far as to forge documents to incriminate Bush. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/127 "2012-03-11T16:34:35Z")
Which story are you speaking of? Because that’s where it gets all hinky. Do you mean the story about a son of privilege, how he managed to evade unpleasant service, how he was inducted into the TANG despite a waiting list of eager and better qualified applicants? That one? ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/128 "2012-03-11T16:39:37Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > –Bell is hardly comparable to Duke. > > . This is what is so confusing about the whole thing. Professor Bell seems like a great guy, I’m glad Obama is praising him. Why shouldn’t he have done so? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/129 "2012-03-11T16:41:57Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Which story are you speaking of? Because that’s where it gets all hinky. Do you mean the story about a son of privilege, how he managed to evade unpleasant service, how he was inducted into the TANG despite a waiting list of eager and better qualified applicants? That one? No, that’s not the story under discussion. The story under discussion is the one about Bush evading his National Guard obligations once he was in. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/130 "2012-03-11T16:58:11Z")
Oh, OK. So, is it fair to say that the only evidence that he might have been privileged to regard his obligations as somewhat less restrictive than usual, the only evidence that was ever presented was in these forged documents? And if these documents were forged, then it is proven that such a story is utterly false, there being no other evidence, anywhere? These documents were forged, therefore he did, in fact, show up for his obligated medical exam? These documents were forged, therefore he did not scamper off to help out in a political campaign? These documents were forged, therefore that little old lady was lying when she says she worked on memos very similar in content? These documents were forged, therefore the commanding officer in question held the young Lt. Bush in the highest regard, peppering his reports with “outstanding”? ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/131 "2012-03-11T18:54:17Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > I would agree with that. Those documents aren’t proof though, they’re forgeries. You seem to be forgetting that important aspect of the story. I’m not forgetting that at all, and nothing I’ve said suggests that. Please quote the post where I said the forged documents were proof of anything at all. What I’ve said, in fact, is that their being forgeries does not prove his _innocence_, much as his partisans would like to spin it that way. There is plenty of other evidence calling Bush’s service into question, including quite prominently the statement from the secretary. > [@Marley23](#): > > This is not a technicality here. The documents that were supposed to prove the story had merit. They were forged, which means there’s no evidence other than somebody’s say-so _and_ the person who was vouching for the story went so far as to forge documents to incriminate Bush. I’m not really following your logic. What Dan Rather did in the 21st century somehow changes the facts that occurred on the ground three decades earlier? Maybe Tricky Dick Nixon wasn’t quite tricky enough: he should have had one of his Plumbers give journalists some fake documents linking him to Watergate, then had the documents exposed as forgeries, which by this kind of logic would clear his name. My point is that I’m not interested in the media angle, or in defending Dan Rather or CBS News. I’m interested in getting at the historical truth of what Bush did or did not do. Or, what \*\*elucidator \*\*said: > [@elucidator](#): > > These documents were forged, therefore he did, in fact, show up for his obligated medical exam? These documents were forged, therefore he did not scamper off to help out in a political campaign? These documents were forged, therefore that little old lady was lying when she says she worked on memos very similar in content? These documents were forged, therefore the commanding officer in question held the young Lt. Bush in the highest regard, peppering his reports with “outstanding”? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/132 "2012-03-11T19:03:06Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, OK. So, is it fair to say that the only evidence that he might have been privileged to regard his obligations as somewhat less restrictive than usual, the only evidence that was ever presented was in these forged documents? And if these documents were forged, then it is proven that such a story is utterly false, there being no other evidence, anywhere? Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear above: I absolutely believe that the accusations against Bush are true and accurate. I also absolutely believe that the documents proving that are forged, and thus prove nothing. I don’t understand your attitude of, “If the accusations are true, what does it matter if the proof was forged?” It does matter. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/133 "2012-03-11T19:06:26Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear above: I absolutely believe that the accusations against Bush are true and accurate. I also absolutely believe that the documents proving that are forged, and thus prove nothing. > > I don’t understand your attitude of, “If the accusations are true, what does it matter if the proof was forged?” It does matter. But no one’s saying those documents are proof. At least I don’t see anyone here saying it. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/134 "2012-03-11T19:25:04Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > What I’ve said, in fact, is that their being forgeries does not prove his _innocence_, much as his partisans would like to spin it that way. No, it doesn’t. But as I remember it, the documentation was supposed to be contemporary proof of his guilt- as opposed to recent statements by people whose motivations could be called into question. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/135 "2012-03-11T19:40:29Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > No, it doesn’t. But as I remember it, the documentation was supposed to be contemporary proof of his guilt- as opposed to recent statements by people whose motivations could be called into question. What I thought was interesting is that he never seemed to be able to find anyone to vouch for his being there, not even people whose motivations could be called into question in the other direction (due to their being Republicans). Or if he did, it wasn’t very many people at all. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/136 "2012-03-11T19:56:50Z")
Perhaps they simply didn’t pay any attention? A small note in the secretary’s statement: > [@](#): > > …But did Lt. Bush get into the National Guard on the basis of preferential treatment? > > “I’m going to say that he did,” says Knox. “I feel that he did, because there were a lot other boys in there in the same way.”… So, just for a guess, perhaps they didn’t pay any more attention to their fellow Guardsmen because they simply didn’t care, one way or the other. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/137 "2012-03-11T20:07:09Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear above: I absolutely believe that the accusations against Bush are true and accurate. I also absolutely believe that the documents proving that are forged, and thus prove nothing. > > I don’t understand your attitude of, “If the accusations are true, what does it matter if the proof was forged?” It does matter. It matters only as far as a case to be made that Rather and co. failed in their journalistic duties. And they did. But I forgot Dan Rather almost the very instant he disappeared from my TV. Bush is taking a bit longer. But I take your point, and we have no serious disagreement. ---
**Author:** ![Normal\_Phase](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Normal\_Phase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Normal_Phase)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2012, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/138 "2012-03-11T21:44:59Z")
You know the funny thing is that most of the academic sorts who like to talk about things like critical race theory and the abolition of whiteness (which does not, by the way, mean white _people_) and only white people can be racist and all of that … they’re about as dangerous to my or anyone else’s white ass as a creampuff. You know? They’re professors in sweater-vests, mostly, even if a few of them were involved with the Black Panthers back in the day or some such. And the right-wing dickwads like to hold them up as OMG the black man is coming to kill you and rape your wife. I can’t quite figure out whether they actually believe what they’re saying. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/139 "2012-03-14T17:42:09Z")
Anyone else getting the impression that **JQPublic** won’t be returning to this thread? ---
**Author:** ![JQPublic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac8455/32.png) [@JQPublic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JQPublic)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140/140 "2012-03-14T17:55:24Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Anyone else getting the impression that **JQPublic** won’t be returning to this thread? Why bother Jimmy Boy? Are you running out of ways to agree with each other? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-why-it-is-controversial-that-obama-hugged-derrick-bell/615140.md?page=8)