Replies

I happened to catch her live interview with Wolf Blitzer yesterday. He actually did a pretty good job

I saw most of that interview, too. I actually wanted to hear her side of the story, because I really didn't know much about her, except that she's from GA. Here's what I noticed: a) at the beginning of the interview, she profusely thanks Wolf, only to then turn on him later, when his questions became more pointed; b) as to the question of why she wasn't wearing her pin, which would have identified her to the officers, she never addressed that directly; and c) she made the claim that she is "known in airports around the world" and thus, they should have known her, too. Finally, a person's face may not change, but hairwstyles do change the way a person is perceived. She would not budge on that point, which really lost me.

So, I think this: she should have worn the pin which is what the officers look for, and not rely on her fame as a celebrity, which is what she seems to want to do.

Even in a small town in this country, where everyone knows each other, you still a driver's license to legally move through the roads while at the wheel of a car; you can't just say: "Well, Joe Blow and everyone ELSE knows me in this town, so I don't need to show you any driver's license, officer."

It seemed to me she put the officers in a bad spot, as even the Atlanta Constitution editorial noted. There were many other ways to solve this, and, to avoid it in the first place.

She avoided all personal responsibility for what happened and changed the subject during the entire interview to the broader issue of the history of racism in the past and present. IOW, because of that history, no person of color need take any responsibility for their lives today. Anyone who opposes anything she wants to do automatically becomes part of that larger view she paints of racism. It becomes proof that she is the victim. Both of her attorneys did the same thing. That's the racist movements' MO.