Friday April 26, 2019
SNc Channels:



Feb-22-2008 23:52printcomments

O'Reilly's Ironic Blunder With Michelle Obama

Did O'Reilly factor in the consequences for this one?

Southern lynching from 1935 in Florida
This 1935 photo depicts the lynching of Rubin Stacy in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Earlier this month, President Bush said, "The noose is a symbol of gross injustice" and "lynching is not a word to be mentioned in jest" Is it possible that Bill O'Reilly's statement about "going on a lynching party against Michelle Obama" is anything but a racist slur? Photo courtesy: Long Island University

(Salem, Ore.) - On Tuesday night's episode of Bill O'Reilly's "The Radio Factor", O'Reilly was quoted using the word lynch in regard to Michelle Obama.

O'Reilly's exact statement was, "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels; that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever; then that's legit. We'll track it down."

The use of the word "lynching" was completely unprovoked by anyone else. He was not repeating a caller's suggestion, or did anyone else make reference to a "lynching party". This is disheartening to anyone who has ever heard this term in it's natural context.

Among other things, a lynching party is a tool for perpetuating white supremacy. Just two weeks ago, President Bush made a plea to all Americans "to not use words like lynch in jest." Surely you shouldn't even need instruction in a matter like this.

O'Reilly seems to have a wealth of blind self-appreciation that prevents his offensiveness from occurring to him. His typical, cookie-cutter defense is that he was taken out of context, and (as always) he did nothing wrong.

The night's conversation that led up to Mr. O'Reilly's metaphorical racial slur was centered around a quote made by Mrs. Obama on 2/18, "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country."

Now, this is an obvious launchpad to insinuate that Mrs. Obama hates America. Of course, being the spin-free master, he also stated that it is "possible... probable maybe, that she misspoke because she's not a professional. I am a professional and i misspeak. So I'm being honest.. but I'm going to take a look at her now and I'm gonna see whether shes a secular-progressive or not....Barrack will not get elected if she's S.P."

O'Reilly also pointed out that having Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State in the White House leaves no room for Michelle Obama to feel bad about the state of the union, let alone feel a lack of pride.

He doesn't seem to believe that our economic system and foreign policy need change, or that change as a concept is important or necessary.

As if O'Reilly has ever in his life apologized for the way he feels, his opinion is that "she needs to come out of her hole, or where ever she is, and say something and stand up".

And so the lesson here is- 'If you do not feel particularly proud of your country, definitely lie about it, especially if your husband's running for office.'

It's no secret that Democrats are disappointed in our government. It sounds like O'Reilly is asking Michelle to change her party affiliation. He probably shouldn't hold out for her beliefs to align with his.

"It's insulting.. with all of the Americans who have died, and all the money the tax payers have spent, liberating people around the world, how could she not be proud of her country?"

Bill O'Reilly may really believe that sending our troops to die is something to be proud of, but it can be accurately assumed that the Obama campaign is directed in opposition to what makes Mr. O'Reilly proud.

Listeners of O'Reilly's frequently hear the term "secular-progressive" or SP. Secular-progressive is a term invented by O'Reilly for liberals seeking change. The term comes from his book, "Culture Warrior", in which O'Reilly asserts that the United States is in the midst of a "vicious culture war" between "traditionalists" and "secular-progressives". In coming up with this term, Mr. O'Reilly perhaps did not take into account that a religious government goes against our constitution.

More specifically, O'Reilly says "secular-progressive individuals are those who are not content with the current state of affairs in the United States." He also says, "Secular-progressives wish to mold [America] in the image of Western Europe."

Contrary to being secular and progressive, O'Reilly says that he and everyone that shares his views are "traditionalists". He defines a traditionalist as someone who believes that the United States is, more often than not, a noble country that has made some mistakes. For O'Reilly, traditionalists believe in the family unit and place emphasis on spirituality, selflessness, and charitable causes. He says that traditionalists are not restricted to any one political ideology.

Surprisingly, O'Reilly cites examples of Democrats in history that were traditionalists, including President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. But when Dr. King and JFK were alive, their outspoken views were just the opposite of everything a "traditionalist" stands for today. This is why they are remembered.

Likewise, O'Reilly has also said that some far-right groups are not traditionalists, such as some militia groups and the Ku Klux Klan. Funny that he would need to specify that one. Now reading between those lines, it is understood that the far-end of his belief spectrum is the hate-group.

Here is a clip from Countdown with O'Reilly's comment, the President's statements about lynching from February 12th, and political analysis with Keith Olberman and Eugene Robinson, courtesy of YouTube:

To hear the full audio show, follow this link: The Factor, the left-wing media & Michelle Obama

Special Thanks: and Wikipedia

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

willie March 21, 2010 4:35 pm (Pacific time)

interesting to read these comments now in context of this failed Presidency

dean August 11, 2009 7:27 pm (Pacific time)

Where are those racist kids now in the photo.

Godsofchaos February 29, 2008 3:05 pm (Pacific time)

Personally I wonder why you watch him if you hate him so much. I mean I wouldn't even be here if (Dad?) I didn't like Tim King so much. We disagree but I still respect his opinion. From what you wrote about Bill you have none for him. So why do you continue to watch him?

Heather February 28, 2008 8:16 am (Pacific time)

So should Lynching now be called the L word?

Editor: Racist sentiments are to be placed in the dumpster out back, not here on, we have no use for you.

Here's what this one had to say about lynching: "Most of them probably had it coming." Go away, see you later, find another place to vent your racist views.

The management says we don't allow your kind around here.

Kevin February 26, 2008 1:32 pm (Pacific time)

I heard from someone who is a regular watcher of O'Reilly (no, we are not friends!) that O'Reily had made an earlier reference to the confirmation hearing of Clarence Thomas when Justice Thomas referred to his questioning as a high tech lynching and that was the context he was using for Sen. Obama's wife. Who knows, but it seems that no one is going after O'Reilly. Probably has a good tight employment contract. They sure buried Olberman's show in the cable channel world, guess the rating game dictated that. Too bad, I get a kick out of his show when time permits.

Kevin February 24, 2008 6:01 pm (Pacific time)

Saw the film, no doubt O'Reilly could profit from an equine laxative. Say what was the reason they moved Olbermann and Chris Mathews from their original channel? Anyone know?

Anne February 23, 2008 10:31 pm (Pacific time)

You would think ol' Bill would've learned to steer clear of that word after we just went through the same nonsense with a "lynch" comment made in reference to Tiger Woods just last month. Same as that situation, I don't believe it was meant as a racial slur, but it was certainly insensitive. I'm having a hard time understanding how the writer can note that O'Reilly suuggested Mrs. Obama stand up and say something and then conclude that the message from O'Reilly is 'If you do not feel particularly proud of your country, definitely lie about it, especially if your husband's running for office.' Sounds to me that he's suggesting she clarify her statements, not lie about them.

Arizona Borders February 23, 2008 2:24 pm (Pacific time)

Racist slanderous retarded ramblings will not be posted here, you are out of luck and out of ammo az borders, get a life you racist piece of crap.

The management

Henry Ruark February 23, 2008 12:27 pm (Pacific time)

abdul et al: ANY senior thesis, written at that stage of personal development, not always most reliable document, no matter whose it is. All-such invariably always well-shaped by mentor involved. If we gonna go for that level of "research", try the Reagan or Cheney or Rove ones, too. Bush II's is simple nonentity, as one expects. You may, again, be amazed at what is there-then; but not fair to hold person to that level of development now. For proof, read Reagan's own-selected biographer: "DUTCH" by Edmund Morris, who won Pulitzer and American Book Award for Rise of Theodore Roosevelt(thus trustworthy). Have NOT seen one for Mrs. Obama, but have checked the others I mentioned, so this is truly an "objective" response and/or "balanced" report since it simply sends you to more "see with own eyes" !!

Abdul February 23, 2008 11:19 am (Pacific time)

I really dislike O'Reily, but he is not a racist, I know what racist's are, believe me.

Henry Ruark February 23, 2008 8:03 am (Pacific time)

Straight-shooting reporting still exists, as this one surely doth prove. O'Relly's ongoing work goes far to strengthen cognitive science's recent findings on how the brain operates differently for some than for others, given political pressures on mental mechanisms we all share. EJ adds solid, insightful illumination stressing the unspoken but realistic dangers to democratic election still in place due to that "ugly ubiquity", too.

Glen February 23, 2008 7:10 am (Pacific time)

I, for one, am looking forward to having a black woman in the White House -- not as cook or cleaning staff, but as First Lady. She's an educated and intelligent person -- and not afraid to speak her mind. So much the better.

EJ February 23, 2008 12:33 am (Pacific time)

Before the 'usual suspects' jump in with inane comments decrying hyper-sensitivity or mis-interpretation, I'd like to congratulate you on a well written piece that highlights the ugly ubiquity of white supremacist attitudes. It can be no surprise that the traditionalists O'Rile-ey lauds cannot contend with notions of multiplicity, nuance or fluidity in terms of such an ephemeral concept as 'pride', but must insist upon defining narrowly the term itself and the way it is to be expressed. Its a simplistic kind of thinking that the likes of Bill encourages. How refreshing it is that Obama's campaign provides some hope that such thinking may not be as pervasive as it often appears.

[Return to Top]
©2019 All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of

Articles for February 21, 2008 | Articles for February 22, 2008 | Articles for February 23, 2008
Donate to and help us keep the news flowing! Thank you.

Special Section: Truth telling news about marijuana related issues and events.

The NAACP of the Willamette Valley

Annual Hemp Festival & Event Calendar