The post from “title to closing statement” is “poorly thought out and ill-conceived?”

I've done both before – but this post isn't evidence of either one.

I didn't label it a race-crime by the way. In fact, i don't see that in any of these comments. Yours is the first to call it that I think. I didn't even call what is on tape a crime, in the legal sense. Though it is indeed a crime in every sense as far as I'm concerned.

Not a racial crime. Not a free speech crime. Not a sexist crime.

Just a crime.

But all those adjectives? If the shoe fits.

In fact, that was a sideshow. These were low-lifes attacking a broadcast team that was covering their (latest) brush with the law. They happened to be racist, too.

However, I am also disappointed in your (what seems like) rush to immediately label this as a race-crime.

I watched the video many times. I did hear the comments about the “racial slurs”, but does yelling racial slurs mean the violence was racially motivated?

I think in this case you are guilty of the ” sensationalism ” that makes me detest most of the mainstream media.

What makes this a video of racial violence? Your headlining statement, nothing more.

Perhaps if there was more documentation of the events leading up to the violence, then maybe I would have the evidence to support your views, and I could agree with you.However, it is just as likely that it would present evidence that it is just “plain-old vanilla violence” and not “Racially motivated violence”… we simply do not know.

One statement that really hit home, is the very first statement made in that video.

“The number one rule of reporting is to report the news objectively”

Does the fact that Rush is a political pundit, or the fact that you are a political blogger make you above that rule ?

I suppose it does, however a single statement you made motivates me into wanting to see you apply this rule..

“I am a journalist”

Your entire commentary ,from title to closing statement, smacks of subjectiveness, and I think it is as poorly thought out and as ill conceived as Rush's statements.

These type of people used to be called white trash. There is never any excuse for such behavior and people will avoid them on the street just like avoiding menacing black men.

However, image what Jena, LA would have been like if a video of a group of blacks beating one white guy. If would have looked like this videotape and most of America would have not been as sympathetic to the Jena Six.

As Senator Obama has learned, a few seconds of video has a much bigger impact than any written material or minutes of a speech.

And that's precisely why — unlike many of his critics, who are appalled that Obama could be assocated for 20 years with someone who maybe occasionally lost his cool and crossed the line — I give Obama the benefit of the doubt. And that's precisely why, I guess, his critics don't.

No, I don't think I made a mistake, but it may be too inside in some ways. Readers who read my personal blog regularly will open their eyes wide when they see me use that kind of language – because I rarely use labels like that – I am extremely stingy with labeling. But I meant it that way – in a stark way – to make people notice way. I trust too much sometimes though – because I expect people will “get” that – and I forget, a lot of folks won't get it and might even misuse it.

But no, I felt it was important to put it that way – because I think it really is intrinsic to the incident – in addition to it being a woman, a journalist and on camera. I still cannot believe it.

It was both provocative, and very appropriate.

You were making an important point about racism.

Of course, reverse the races in the headline – as was suggested – and I doubt any MSM editor would pass it.

Many newspapers have in the past – as a matter of policy – not reported the race of crime suspects if the suspects are visible minorities. This lends to a “Pravda” effect in the reading public, that fosters distrust of the media.

But then there is a class element involved here as well…one can see in the video.

One of the fascinating things about Obama's speech was that he touched on all these elements. I can't recall any other politician ever doing that before. It was a clearly political speech…brilliant in parts, flawed in others … but he addressed things that I can't recall any other politician addressing as frankly.

But if you use terms regarding race or gender, there will always be someone to complain. Maybe they'll complain because you were wrong and you deserve it–or maybe they'll complain because you were right and they don't like it.

You can call like you see it. If your readers don't like it, they'll slam away. You may already have noticed that phenomenon.

It's easier to judge individual cases in retrospect. So: do you think you made a mistake?

Was/is that title wrong? Did I make a mistake?

Even though he couldn't get his own party to nominate the guy he wanted!!

Agreed. But even in my more conservative-than-now days, I thought that.