Shelby Steele acknowledged he doesn't believe claim in subtitle of his own book on Obama
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Despite the claim in the subtitle of his book, A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win, Shelby Steele acknowledged that he thinks Sen. Barack Obama "can definitely win" the presidential election. Steele told Fox News' Sean Hannity the subtitle was an "afterthought" that he "regret[ted]" and that it did not represent the book's thesis.
Shelby Steele, author of A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win (Free Press, December 2007), acknowledged that he thinks Sen. Barack Obama "can definitely win" the presidential election, despite the claim in the book's subtitle -- "Why He Can't Win" -- which he said was an "afterthought" that he "regret[ted]" and which he said did not represent the book's thesis.
Appearing on the June 22 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America, host Sean Hannity discussed with Steele Obama's "chances of making it all of the way to the White House," asking, "All right, so he can't win?" Steele responded: "He can win. I regret that subtitle," adding, "It was an afterthought. And I don't argue that in the book. He can definitely win. There is a powerful desire in American society today to see someone like him move to the White House."
From the June 22 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America:
HANNITY: As the first African-American presidential nominee, Democrat Barack Obama is no doubt running an historic campaign. But will that distinction help or hurt his chances of making it all of the way to the White House? Joining us now, author of a brand new book, A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win, Shelby Steele. Shelby, good to see you, my friend. Thanks for being back with us.
STEELE: Good to be here.
HANNITY: All right, so he can't win?
STEELE: He can win. I regret that subtitle.
HANNITY: OK.
STEELE: It was an afterthought. And I don't argue that in the book. He can definitely win. There is a powerful desire in American society today to see someone like him move to the White House.

















I know if you give me a dollar to buy a $.05 soft pretzel from me, I'd owe you $.95 in real change.
WK,
I too did time in the catholic school system of this beautiful state, which holds the city of brotherly love, and am impressed with your mathematical skills. But Gingrich is, I believe, a renowned philosopher, and spoke of "change" on a more metaphysical level.
But Gingrich is, I believe, a renowned philosopher
You believe wrong. Only in his own mind is he renowned for philosophy.
Tommy's first missed point of the week.
The claim is on the cover, Steele admits that it falsely prefaces the contents of the book, but he's not misinforming anyone?
There's a Kevin Trudeau book you should read.
Pete's first defense of MMFA :)
I am sure the entire book is one misinformed opinion. So.
Tommy,
"So"??........ stop stealing Dick Cheney's thunder!
Media Matters has put into effect a process that systematically monitors a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda.
Having a subtitle on a book that says Obama can't win even when you believe that he can win is forwarding the conservative agenda. It's making Obama's election look less likely than you think it is. The conservative agenda wants to make Obama look unelectable.
Tommy, I was thinking the same thing, I guess Sue /nomonbush/notthategeorge also believes Hillary Clinton was going around spewing Conservative Misinformation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/02/hillary-clinton-barack-ob_n_94770.html
I think we can distinguish between "any negative comment" and a comment that is admittedly misleading. It is about "misinformation" that forwards a conservative agenda, even by what Bottleblonde wrote.
It doesn't seem as if the problem is with Hannity or his show, it's about the book. It's showing that the subtitle is misrepresenting the book, which creates the wrong impression to anyone who hears about it. It is out of the norm here, definitely, but noteworthy nonetheless.
What I want to know is:how the hell do you write a subtitle that directly contradicts the thesis of your book? That is just about impossible to believe.
What I want to know is:how the hell do you write a subtitle that directly contradicts the thesis of your book? That is just about impossible to believe.
He implies ithat he added it without due consideration but the truth is more likely he thought Obama couldn't win when the manuscript was sent to the publishers.... and now he appears to be wrong. Buy my book anyway!
You make your point look much weaker, if that's possible, when you falsely accuse me of being someone I'm not. But your point is pretty weak. Pushing a false meme in the media is the issue here, and so if that negative comment forwards the conservative agenda it would be fair game, that's correct.
I don't care if you don't like Media Matters mission statement. Your disapproval doesn't change it. Based upon their mission statement, your WITH post is out of line.
Having a subtitle on a book that says Obama can't win even when you believe that he can win is forwarding the conservative agenda. It's making Obama's election look less likely than you think it is. The conservative agenda wants to make Obama look unelectable.
Well Sue/Ellie/Blondie how about the following article. Would you agree it forwards a Democratic/Liberal agenda by suggesting McCain's election isn't likely?? It seems to meet your criteria.
Historians see little chance for McCain
By DAVID PAUL KUHN | 6/15/08 7:05 AM EST
One week into the general election, the polls show a dead heat. But many presidential scholars doubt that John McCain stands much of a chance, if any.
Historians belonging to both parties offered a litany of historical comparisons that give little hope to the Republican. Several saw Barack Obama’s prospects as the most promising for a Democrat since Roosevelt trounced Hoover in 1932.
“This should be an overwhelming Democratic victory,” said Allan Lichtman, an American University presidential historian who ran in a Maryland Democratic senatorial primary in 2006. Lichtman, whose forecasting model has correctly predicted the last six presidential popular vote winners, predicts that this year, “Republicans face what have always been insurmountable historical odds.” His system gives McCain a score on par with Jimmy Carter’s in 1980.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11090.html
Boy, you guys sure must've had your butts handed to you on a regular basis to be so afraid of Sue coming back.
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not her.
Ever hear of 'attack the message, not the messenger'? Some other story that you claim pushes a liberal agenda is not within the scope of Media Matters. The issue is the book promoted on Hannity's show. A book title that furthers the conservative agenda of falsely making Obama look unelectable is within the scope and didn't deserve Tommy's WITH post.
But that news story you mentioned is not pushing an agenda anyway. It's simply discussing historical data to extrapolate to this race. The subtitle of the book, on the other hand, isn't even supported by the contents inside the book. If you can't see the difference between a subtitle that's not backed up by the contents inside the book and factual judgements based upon historical data, then that's your problem.
Boy, you guys sure must've had your butts handed to you on a regular basis to be so afraid of Sue coming back.
Funny but that's exactly what, Ellie, NotThatGeorge & all the other names "Sue" posted under here always said.
And now you said it too.
If you knew Susie like I know Susie...
Jeter
Bottleblonde/ellie/Sue/nomobush/notthatgeorge is the same person. Her saying she is not is like Hannity saying he is fair and balanced.
I'm on your side. I've never understood the thrill of playing that sort of "Gotcha" game. I've participated on enough forums over the years to have seen a few of those moniker switches. I almost always simply respond to the new name as I would have to the old.
The only time I've felt compelled to call the person out was when the different aliases started cheering each other on.
I personally could give a rat's @$$ what this person's name is. Even it is this person you claim it to be, address the argument. If they say something offensive, then flag them. But quit acting like a bunch of 10year olds.
I agree with you, it did not stop that Bottleblonde and others from accusing me I was BobtheP however, many on here love to play games and one of them is smearing.
I'm on your side. I've never understood the thrill of playing that sort of "Gotcha" game. I've participated on enough forums over the years to have seen a few of those moniker switches. I almost always simply respond to the new name as I would have to the old.
The only time I've felt compelled to call the person out was when the different aliases started cheering each other on.
Guess you didn't see this post above yours before you again attempted to smear me. Weeks ago I pointed out your hypocrisy because you said you hadn't lambasted KO in "months" when you had in fact done it less than 2 months before. I used your own words to debunk what you said when you unfairly criticized JuliaJayne. I called you and Bobthep out as being sockpuppets because it's clearly true. Someone else who has been here a lot longer than I have first noticed it, but it's undeniabe. The screen name Bobthep was the one who was tasked with mocking and criticizing KO as soon as the screen name Sueeld stopped doing it.
As Bill said above, when different screen names of the same poster start with the hijinks, it's time to call them out. Otherwise, it's out of line.
And to top it off, I still have your comments where you claim to be better than this.
J, thanks, but as I said earlier I do not want to get into this discussion. You may have an issue with Bottleblonde, I really just want to stick to issues.
- SueEld / Tuesday June 10, 2008 12:28:21 PM EDT
Do you think people read that and think that you really want to stick to the issues, or that you simply wanted to appear innocent and pretend to distance yourself from the unfair attacks that Jlyon was making?
Sue/Ellie
And you are a sockpuppet also, shame on you again for your unfair attack on Sueeld by accusing her of being BobtheP. You really are vile.
And it took all of 7 minutes after the item was posted.
Catch you on coffee break?? :)
The conservative trolls would hate unions, or at least they're supposed to like their patron saint Ronald Reagan. They'd be in a predicament with that one.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Tommy, as I said earlier, I am shocked that Steele is ADMITTING to that fact, especially to one of his biggest racist white supremacist "fans", Racist Sean Hannity, on the Fox Lies Channel.
Most black conservatives don't believe the anti-black things they say about their own race, but they say them because they want to collect big paychecks from their white corporatist conservative Republican elites foundations and think tanks that control them and trot them out to the black community as the alleged "alternative" black leadership, when in reality, Negro conservatives like Steele are the black conservative "puppetship".
I expect black talk radio to verbally barbeque Steele like baby back ribs big time...AGAIN. That was BEFORE the admission he made.
Gee, and I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and beleive that he might actually think Obama's could win. After all Condi Rice was "gratified by Obama's win". Article here: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/07/rice_gratified_by_obama_win.html
But you make a good point. And a sobering point. Maybe a little cynical. But hey, after all that's gone down, cyncism is warranted.
You'd thing Steele, for all of the time he spends hanging around Fox, would have been sharp enough to put the subtitle in the form of a question.
Obama;Impossible to Elect????
ps to Tommy- be careful. Your recent posts indicate that you may be sliding into an alternate reality where the WITH thing is an official duty, or that others take you seriously and rely on your judgment to help them.I'm concerned it may be going past the goof phase. ;0)
Tommy boy just takes the cake
With those spurious arguments he makes
Asking Why is this here?
With a glib little sneer
It's 'cause he has no point to make
That's why everybody gets such a laugh out of it, Tommy. According to you, anybody who sees the point in a particular MMFA item is an unthinking "rubberstamper".
But you, because you post every day trying to find reasons why the items are not valid, are a free-thinking firebrand.
You do get the joke, don't you?
but as I told the Colonel, touchy touchy today
What does that mean,I have an appointment to get a massage from you, Tommy? Neat !
I knew he was crushing on you colonel :-)
First the date, now a massage. He's getting hotter than me and Jeter.
Can nuptials be around the corner?
Where are you registered?
Also registered at the Bill O'Reilly Factor Store clearance sale dept.
He's getting hotter than me and Jeter
Nah darlin Tommy & the Colonel don't have our sizzle :-)
I'll be Tommy's Best Man, if you'll be the Colonel's Maid Of Honor ;-)
Julia honey it can be under the table or on top of the table...wherever you'd like...;-) hehehe
But I have to pay?!?
You can pay me under the table....
Now next time you don't get the thrust of my points, dont make me tweak them for you. Or you may get the rough side of my tongue!
Darlin I got your point ;-)
I'd have you under or on top of any table...
I just don't know why I have to pay. I ain't no john ;-)
Now Jeter, either you are being very obtuse or you're really embracing your "Himbo American" heritage.
Reread my post. It's filthy. Geeze.
I require no monetary payment. Just your undying love, devotion and lust :-0)
Ok sweet Julia, sometimes I don't want to just assume you're talkin sexy...just in case you're not :-O
I wasn't sure with your first post, though I thought you probably were, so I made the under/over the table comment. Now I get what "pay" meant. Hey I'm a sweet guy [I saw the post where you said that] I try to be a gentleman...but you bring out the Hound aka undying love, devotion and lust in me ;-)
Well, I did tell you last week that I could be a lot less of a lady :-) But I hope I don't have to corral my "feelings" too much out of deference to you bein' a gentleman and all :-0)
And you are sweet. That's true. That's one reason I like you.
Aw shucks [blushing]
Julia to me you are the perfect combo of sweet & feisty, which is why I like you :-)
And even Gentlemen & Ladies can have a little fun ;-)
Ha! Colonel how do you know where to find this kind of info? Never mind, I don't want to know..
Well, in light of this secret handshake, I'll be your Best Man & Julia can be Tommy's Maid of Honor.
I just don't think I can wear heels ;-)
And see if you can get Tommy to polish up his dancing a little before the reception.
Tommy's hotter than I imagined! Now if I can get him to switch teams :-0)
I think Tommy's a little overwhelmed with "The Big Day" coming up.He's even imagined some other dress than the little black number he fell in love with.
(And my new suits nuthin to sneeze at either)
Alright Col, I know walking down the aisle with a liberal demands I wear black, but you really shouldn't have let our little secret out, now you've really done it!!
;)
Are you trying to say he should learn to do the Polka?
NiceGuy, Sean Hannity is a right wing racist ball of hate, and as for Steele, as I quote the insult coined by black talk radio host Matt McGill of WVON-AM 1690 http://www.wvon.com, "Steele is a buck-dancing, self-hating, Yes Massa' right wing conservative Negro Sambo!" McGill's words, not mine!
Speaking of WVON-AM 1690, another one of their black radio hosts, Roland S. Martin http://www.rolandsmartin.com has repeatedly called out Hannity, and has repeatedly challenged Hannity to a debate. So far, Hannity is STILL telling the lie that he never heard of Martin.
It is racism, and racist, at this stage of the proceeding, to continuously make these completely unnecessary observations about any of the candidate's "race" or ethnic heritage or color or whatever you want to call it: why bother to keep invoking something that is not only long known and obvious to everybody, but doesn't make any difference anyway?
Because it's racism asnd racist, that's why.
Illustration: Imagine for a moment that you're in College, and you're going home for the long weekend: your room-mate has nothing to do this weekend, nor any place to go... and rather than leave them there alone on campus, you invite them to be your guest, and your family's guest, for the long weekend back at your home: you walk into the house, and say "hey mom hey dad it's me home for the weekend and I brought my roomie and I'm sure you won't mind if we find room on the couch or wherever and here she or he is, come welcome him or her!"
And your mom says "hey love I missed you terribly and hi roomie any friend of our daughter or son is a daughter or son to us too and sure you're welcome and we can do better than the couch I'm sure!"
And your dad says"Hi... gee, I see that you're a different race or ethnic heritage or color or whatever, from us"
And you and your mom look mortified: but why leave a mess on the floor, when you can at least make the effort to clean it up: "you'll have to excuse my husband" your mom says... "he not only has such sharp eyes for the obvious, but he makes distinctions among people that don't really make a bit of difference anyway"
And you laugh, and say "that's my dad alright!", trying to keep it light.
But later on, at the dinner table, your dad does it again, and makes a completely unnecesarry comment as to your room-mate's race color or whatever: "so, what's it like being the race color or whatever that you are: it must be something out of the ordinary, I bet"
...and when he does it yet again: "I can't help but to want to comment more about how I see that you are a different race color whatever from me, and on how that means you are something different from the rest of us: let's talk more about things skin-deep and obvious to us all, as though they mattered and we just can't get over them and..."
You and your mom are furious!
Your mom snarls like a tigress at your dad, and the words seem to indicate that there's something out in the kitchen that needs attending to: and your dad knows this voice and what it means, and like a jack-out-of-the-box, he's out of his seat at the table, and out into the kitchen...
And your mom turns so sweet and placid and warm and still, like the eye of a hurricane having just relieved you of the tempest, and turns to your room-mate to say:
"Please forgive me and my husband and my son or daughter, and our Home, for my husband's behavior: while the idiot things he says might easily be thought of as racist, I assure you, that he is a good man: it is just that he is somewhat ignorant in these things, and sometimes just can't get past what's not important, what's not really a distinction in Human People, and what's so obvious and long acceptable, that it no longers matters to us, as we all have long seen, and we get it...
...and it's no real difference among Human People anyway, is it dear?"
And the dear she is speaking to, is both you and your room-mate: who now that you think of it, is like a Brother or Sister to you, never more than now, by way of what your mom just did and said.
And before you can say anything, your white roomate speaks up: "It's OK... I understand... it's alright: if it's racism or racist, it's mild compared to what it could be... I'd rather not keep having people draw me a different color than them" your white roomate says "but it's OK, I understand..."
"My dad does the same thing too... on the television even... maybe you've seen him do it, on Fox... my dad's sean hannity, and he does that same racist thing too, of unnecessarily prattling on about what the rest of us have long noticed and gotten over, and doesn't truly make any difference anyway"
Not to the eye... and not in the eye of the hurricane.
The surprise is NOT that the anti-black Negro Conservative Shelby Steele does NOT believe the lies and dissemblies that he himself wrote in his own book.
The surprise is that Steele is admitting to that fact on television, the BIGGER surprise is that he's admitting it on GOP-Fox Lies Channel, the BIGGEST surprise of all is that he's saying that to the right wing racist white supremacist ball of hate Liar Sean Hannity.