The PuffHo and Racism

Failed Hollywoodite and leading Joe Lieberman hater Jane Hamsher posted some of her typical rhetoric at the PuffHo. She also included this picture:

Now explain to me why she or someone at the PuffHo would photoshop a picture of Joe Lieberman making it look like he was a minstrel. It makes zero sense and has nothing to do with her post.

It is nothing but pure simple racism. Why else would they edit a picture to show a Jewish senator in black face? Maybe to portray him as Bill Clinton's lackey or something.

It doesn't matter though, liberals can't be racist, only conservatives and Republicans can.

Notice that the comment ended once the racism charges started. I tried to post a comment and was blocked.

Update: Even though I linked to them in the previous post, here's more comments from Ace, Decision 08, Michelle Malkin, ABP and Allah.

Update: The graphic is gone but this remains:

(Graphic by DarkBlack)

Fitting name. Of course we know that Hamsher inserted the picture because she credits "DarkBlack" is many posts such as this one.

Update: Hamsher issues an unapologetic apology. Typical liberal, she redirects and shifts the blame.

Kevin Aylward, Ed Driscoll and Tom Maguire respond.

Update 2: The "artist" defends himself:

As the composer of the work in question, allow me to make some broader points clearer. This will be my last word on the subject, but all are free to debate further, of course.

Thank you for giving me your permission to debate. It won't be as solid of a debate without your involvement but what can you do?

Lieberman has attempted to activate a voting demographic that his strategists believe will aid him in his quest.

To this end, he has imported a figure, Bill Clinton, who has standing with the American black community, and has repeatedly asserted his personal credentials as one who has worked on behalf of that community.

Yet Lieberman has engaged in race baiting (with the Lamont flyer) as a cynical attempt to game this demographic, and he has engaged in other activities which cast doubtful shadows upon this allegiance.

Lieberman--by your interpretation--claims allegiance to African-Americans but doesn't live up to that allegiance. Sounds like the entire Democratic party to me but I digress. Your response to the good senators supposed exploitation of the black community is to portray him in black face thus alienating the entire black community you profess to be looking out for. I'm not getting that at all, but then I'm not a nuanced and sophisticated "artist".

Thus, in my opinion, Lieberman is pretending to be something that he is not for personal gain, exactly like the vile caucasian minstrel show performers of Vaudeville. And so my artist's impression stands.

A cursory inspection of Liebermans past work on civil rights issues would awaken you to the fact that in the long donk history of helping minorities, Lieberman has been at the forefront. But why quibble about facts when we're talking about "artist's impression" and such?

If we as a people run from controversial imagery, we will never stop running. Better to unearth and deal with the unpleasant than to live in fear.

No one is running, we are all showing the picture in an attempt to understand (which your words here have not helped) or to show that your "art" is offensive and as such should be displayed and picked apart.

As for those who would heap ad hominem at the expense of reasoned debate on the greater issues...I care not what you think, and you are free to ignore my work as you wish.

What "greater issue" is supposed to be debated because you portrayed a senator with black face? As for ignoring your work, I'd love to. But if you post a racially tinged picture (a picture that would have the left screaming for hate crimes arrests if it were on a conservative site), we will comment and we will debate. The debate is occurring and Lieberman is not the one looking bad; you and Hollywood never-was Hamsher are.

Read the other comments as well.