Here is a video of the Q and A on MTV: Link to vid



First of all the question asked to Edwards was about inner city kids. Not blacks, unless he just assumes all inner city kids are black. That in itself seems racist to me.



To be debated:

In a world where the media is quick to jump on any gaffe by a political figure why is this not being reported on?

Because this is a great example of institutionalized racism. Edwards makes remarkable assumptions in his statement, translating inner city into "black" then assuming that all blacks live in the inner city set apart from white suburban education and resources. His comments come from the core of presumed black identity in the U.S. and as such are accepted as natural and accurate. The reason the media does not report on this is because this is simply how white America sees blacks in our culture. In film, television, and music it's all about the inner city, crime, and violence. So there is no triggering of the racist switch in the heads of reporters when such a remark is made.

Um, since I have seen it on CNN, Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC and on McNiel/Lehr at this point- the entire question is laughable at its best- the media was all over this. I have no idea what rock this came out from under as far as some media conspiracy against embarrasing John Edwards- but they have been all over him since the 400 dollar haircut.

Why in the world would you believe that the media has ignored this? And this was only one day after it happened. What- they didn't report it fast enough for ya or something? Like- it should have interupted as a breaking news bulletin at prime time sitcom and football?

Sorry Sleeper, I don't see it as a gaffe that would merit much attention. For starters, he was addressing a black female. It is reasonable to assume that she was referring to black youth. Though I would not have labeled the inner city kids as being black I'll give Edwards a pass on this minor misstep.

Now, does and will Edwards (along with everyone else) use the "black situation" for the purpose of political advantage? Absolutely.

I don't get it. I haven't seen Edwards getting lambasted in the media, but I don't watch news (usually) and I don't understand allegations of institutionalized racism here. Is the media racist when it acknowledges that inner city schools are made up of largely poor kids and most of those kids are black? Here's a "racist" black reporter unwittingly perpetuating "instituionalized racism": While I understand this position, and am fully aware of the serious shortcomings of the American education system—especially when you note that many suburban schools, because of high property taxes, look like college campuses, and those attended by mostly black and Hispanic children are falling apart—Oprah is dead-on in her assessment.

What an Uncle Tom. And crap, look at this Dept. of Education study: Whereas White students constituted 60 percent of the national public sample at grade 4 and 64 percent at grade 8, in the urban districts, White students made up a maximum of 15 percent of the samples at grade 4 (New York City) and 11 percent of the samples at grade 8 (Chicago). Black or Hispanic students constituted majorities in the urban districts in the trial assessment.

They're in on the conspiracy to keep blacks down! Their footnote is cute. "Central city" does not, not I repeat, mean "inner city", but urban is okay.

What am I missing?

The racist remark wasn't only that the inner city was full of blacks, it was the assertion that that was the only place to find black youths, and that these youths had one of two available futures, jail or death. As for the Uncle Tom of an author, I tend to agree with him, there does see to be an absence of pride in education among black youths, which is nothing new.

The premise of the statement in question is that if we simply keep on incarcerating male youth, that trend will lead to not having enough prisons and a young Black male population that is either in prison or dead. The leap from "kids" to "African-American males" could be a technique to bring the answer into sharper focus. The woman asking the question happens to be Black.

I would not call this racist but does have a few logical problems. The first is that it extrapolates outward to hyperbole. The second is that the statement is too broad, which contributes to the hyperbole. A third has to do with the video presentation given here -- it takes the statement out of context. I'm curious as to the content of the entire answer that Edwards gives, which does not seem to be available at this time. The snipped answer does mention the POTUS saying that we can't go on the way we have been and that the school systems need to be made more fair.

Sounds like this thing is being reported upon, so the premise of the debate question has a logical problem too. I imagine as more commentators take notice, we'll get the entire answer to the question and can judge from context if the hyperbole is justified or not as a rhetorical technique in this situation. Hyperbole is used all the time, especially by the present POTUS. Seems that worked for a while.

I did notice that Edwards was playing his central theme that two Americas exist, one for the wealthy and the other for everyone else. That probably has more traction this time around, but maybe not enough to get the nomination.

It's early Monday morning as I post this. Too early to tell if a pile-on will happen or not. My guess is that pile-ons are being constructed right now.

I didn't see it on any of those sources. So I will call you disingenuous until you can provide links of source showing CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC aired this story. Because I have done google news searches with "John Edwards" and have not found ANY of those sites showing any stories about this incident. Frankly I think you made it up that you saw it on all those channels.

How about because it's not a gaffe when you're telling the truth? Black teenagers are killing each other at a appalling rate and usually over nothing of significance. Black teenage boys do face a lot of hardships.

How very convenient that the video fades out just as Edwards is explaining his answer and goes on about how the educational system needs to be reformed. Funny, how that happened just as he was about to elaborate and expand on his response.

On the other hand, as long as John Edwards has his words taken out of context, you can huff and puff with obviously contrived indignation and insincere outrage, right, Sleeper? It's the soundbite that counts.

HERE is the complete response Edwards gave to the young woman's question. Took me all of 5 seconds to find it. Enjoy the "no-spin" answer.

You say Crusing Ram "made up" his statement that he had seen the mainstream media report on the remarks Edwards made? Y'know, I have the distinct feeling you "made up" this thread to engage in a game of "gotcha." Certainly not because you care one way or another about the violence and lack of opportunities that plague young Black males.

Gaffe? He did get fired. True? Undeniable, yet politically incorrect.

Care to give your explanation another shot NT?

In any event, I think that this has been adequately covered by all the important places.

Q. What would you do to help eliminate inner city kids partake in violence?

A. That's a good question. The answer's a little long so bear with me, because I don't think there's a silver bullet for this. We start with the POTUS saying to America we cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we're just gonna keep incarcerating, keep incarcerating—pretty soon we're not gonna have a young African American male population in America. They're all going to be in prison, or dead. One of the two. And so I think there are a lot of things we need to do. First, we need to have an education system that's fair for people who live in the inner city. Because right now we have two public school systems in America: one for affluent suburban neighborhoods and one for the inner-city [snip]

1) Nowhere in Edwards's response is the claim that inner city schools are attended exclusively by blacks ("people who live in the inner city"). Maybe I don't take issue with it because I already know a decent chunk of those people are Hispanic, although the majority of students are blacks. 2) Edwards doesn't say inner city school is the only place you'll find black youths (I wonder how you interpreted that one). 3) Black males make up 37% of the U.S. prison population but only make up 12% of the nation's population according to 2000's census. One explanation is lower education.

Maybe Edwards was exaggerating, but his exaggeration was based on trends. Black males make up a bigger percentage of the prison population as time goes on. They're more likely to face the death penalty for killing a white victim than white-on-white murder and young black males have the highest mortality rate of any race.

The only thing Edwards put in absolute terms it the number blacks in jail. I don't understand what the big deal is. If the question had been "What would you do to help eliminate the AIDS epidemic among blacks?" and he had extrapolated from the fact that black women have the highest AIDS rate in the U.S. it would be fine with me.

The one thing Edwards could be faulted for is assuming every inner city school is under funded. I have a feeling had Edwards framed his response in terms of deteriorating family values and used the same exaggerations conservatives wouldn't take issue with him at all. They'd be like, right on, man!


But the "Uncle Tom" author is saying most inner city schools are attended by blacks. Why don't you take issue with him?

1. The violence against young black men is most often perpetuated by other black men.
2. Not all inner city youth are black.
3. There are no "lack of opportunities" based upon skin color NT. Sure, felons have a hard time getting jobs and poor people find it harder to get an education... but the nation isn't agains young black males, as we've gone over time and time again. Ever looked at a college "minority" scholarship book?

Anywho...

John Edwards is like every other politician on both sides of the aisle. He says what people will like who might vote for him. NT is a great example. He believes that black men have it harder in America... and I'm sure there are people just like him. Maybe if he sells the idea that he might try to change this... WHAMMO- votes.

It's not a DNC or GOP controlled market. It's how politicians in 2007 operate. Sure, I find race pandering divisive and against the factual information that backs up our points, but who cares?

I have a funny one. I have a candidate that uses our company's services who happens to be unnamed... (but is the GOP front runner in campaign $$$). He had a rally recently that I swung through (because they're a good client), and they were pushing "no babies before marriage". Wanna know why? He was in Salt Lake City. Easy enough, right? Mormons think that's a big deal. Sellin' what they're buyin'... that's what they do.

actually- you made the allegation-it is up to you to prove it. We have a "group" at work, twice a day- it lasts for one hour. Then, on top of that, we have a TV running about 16 hours a day, that is usually tuned to news channels. It has been all over the news- but I think it died quickly- because, as it has been pointed out- it is not that big of a deal.

The lead in, on every channel is something to the effect of "the soundbite Edwards doesn't like" or some such.

If you did't catch it- that is your bad.

Google news search for terms "John Edwards Blacks"

Sorted by date, earliest first. Notice the Fox News and CBS story is from todays date. There were no stories from CNN, ABC, CBS, or NBC prior to you making your post. So I don't believe you when you say you saw it on those channels.

So what- you can't find the 3 minute bit on him- what you found today was a segment really- it was reported and, like anything else- it gets rolling more. What- you think CBS just out of the blue with a segment- that no one carried it?

I really don't care if you believe me or not, or can't find it on the internet- oh well. If you want to fill some kind of conspiracy that the media didn't air it fast enough for you-be my guest. It is pretty apparent it is not exactly being kept a state secret either

Thanks for that NT. You're a better googler than I, or maybe I was ahead of the spiders.

Just as I figured, Edwards came up with a good observation: Our society is more punitive to inner-city Black youth than other youth. By good I mean accurate unless someone has stats to refute this idea.

I'm not sure about his ideas because you never have time to get into details. At least he has some -- other than to ignore the problem.

The very bad thing about our present system is the difficulty of turning your life around after making a mistake or even a legal move such as personal bankruptcy, very possibly due to corporate-caused unemployment due to corporate bankruptcy (also corporate crooks).

Far be it from me to defend Edwards on the basis of any substantive worth he has as a candidate, but his "assumption" doesn't strike me as being racist. There are two reasons for this. First, "inner city" has become a rhetorical stand-in for urban blacks. Second, in his upbringing and state, the majority of "inner city" kids are black. Its his experience, just as a politician from Texas or California is as likely to frame "inner city kids" as Hispanic or black.

In a world where the media is quick to jump on any gaffe by a political figure why is this not being reported on?

1. Because this isn't as big of a gaffe as you seem to think. As Clara Peller (?) used to say, "where's the beef?"
2. Edwards is a Democrat who cannot, per the liberal template, be racist, so there's no point in reporting it.
3. Edwards' candidacy is fading, so he's not a juicy target, thus the only purpose to be served would be to make Democrats in general look bad. As if the MSM is going to do that right now?