
Editor’s note: John P. Avlon is the author of Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics and writes a weekly column for The Daily Beast. Previously, he served as Chief Speechwriter for New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and was a columnist and associate editor for The New York Sun.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/05/rall.tancredo.art.jpg caption="Ted Rall (L) and Tom Tancredo (R)."]
In the wingnut view of the world, there is no accusation too extreme and no problem that can’t be solved with a demand for the president’s resignation. Need new proof? Take a look at this week’s wingnuts – Tom Tancredo and Ted Rall.
The debate over the Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination took an unexpected turn this week, with Republicans on defense after accusations of racism started sounding wingnutty even to some supporters.
Tom Tancredo’s comments were case in point. The creationist former Colorado congressman and self-styled anti-illegal immigrant crusader took to the airwaves and managed to conjure up not one but two howlers in the space of days.
Judge Sotomayor is a member of the National Council of La Raza, the country’s largest Hispanic civil rights organization, which counts among its 300 major sponsors companies like Wal-Mart. Even if you disagree with their prescription for immigration reform, it sounds pretty legit, right? Not in the world according to Tom Tancredo, who took an opportunity on CNN to describe the organization as “nothing more than a ... Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses.”
KKK comparisons are just short of Nazi comparisons in the hierarchy of out-of-bounds political metaphors. The KKK is the KKK – full stop. Unless there are actual lynchings involved, it’s best to back off.
But maybe Tancredo was just having an off moment, spurred by emotional scars from the immigration debate. He quickly surrendered any benefit of the doubt when he was asked by David Shuster on MSNBC whether he thought “the Obama administration hates white people.” Tancredo couldn’t quite bring himself to sound reasonable even in the face of that logical softball, pausing for thought and then saying “I don’t know.” When incredulously pushed again, Tancredo laid his cards on the table: “I have no idea whether they hate white people or not!”
Really? This would be news to the millions of white people who voted for Obama, let alone the white members of his cabinet and staff – to say nothing of the members of his mother’s family. For all the wingnut hocus pocus during the campaign, (remember the “Obama is the anti-Christ” emails?) the closest to this conspiracy theory was the Pennsylvania McCain volunteer who carved a “B” on her face, claiming she was assaulted by a black Obama supporter. Note to Republicans: Give the obsession with race a rest.

Here are the big stories on the agenda today:
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/04/intv.melhem.art.jpg caption= "Hisham Melhem says he would have liked President Obame to be 'more blunt' with Arab and Muslim leaders."]
President Obama spoke directly to the world's billion and a half Muslims today and his widely-anticipated speech is now being debated.
Hisham Melhem is Washington bureau chief of Al-Arabiya. He spoke to John Roberts on CNN’s “American Morning” Thursday.
John Roberts: What did you think of the president's speech?
Hisham Melhem: I think it was very well-crafted, eloquent. He did a good job in fusing history, culture, politics, and personal narrative. And I think he boldly discussed some thorny, tough, sensitive issues that sometimes Muslim leaders and Arab leaders don't like to hear and he asked them somewhat to engage in introspection. I think he was very honest with both Israelis and Arabs. He clearly defined America's objectives in the war against al Qaeda and…he didn't talk about the war on terrorism in general.
He was thoughtful when he talked about democracy and human rights and he did not use the Messianic, metaphysical, theological language that his predecessor George Bush used to use. There were no combustible phrases like “Islamo-Fascism.” I just wish that he went a little bit further and was a bit blunter when he was addressing the Arab and Muslim leaders on the issue of democracy and human rights. You know John, Arabs always complain about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, and for the right reasons, like everybody else. But Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib pale in comparison to what takes place within Arab and Muslim prisons. We are talking here about political repression en masse. We are talking about imprisoning activists, journalists and lawyers, not violent people. And we're talking about basic denial of basic human rights.
And if I were one of his speech writers I would have added a paragraph where the president would say “I'm doing my share to start this new beginning between us and you. You have to do your share.” And he should have been a little bit more blunt about the responsibility of Arabs and their need to engage in introspection and self-criticism the way he was doing.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/04/intv.ziada.dalia.cnn.art.jpg caption="Dalia Ziada reacts to Obama's Mideast speech from the youth perspective."]
President Obama reached out to the world's 1.5 billion Muslims this morning from Cairo, addressing relations with the west along with a good portion devoted to women's rights.
“Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons...”
Dalia Ziada is an Egyptian human rights activist and blogger, who attended President Obama’s speech in Cairo. She spoke to Carol Costello on CNN’s “American Morning” Thursday.
Carol Costello: First of all, I want to know what it was like to sit in the audience. What was the mood like?
Dalia Ziada: The hall was full of people from different walks of life. Mostly Egyptians, Muslim Brotherhood, mixed with liberals, mixed with socialists, capitalists, people from different backgrounds, religious backgrounds like Muslims, Christians, Coptics, Baha’is. Obama succeeded to do what we always fail to do, which is bringing all of us together in one whole and agreeing on certain things and certain points.
Costello: Dalia, while he was talking about women's rights, did most of the audience clap? Did just some? Did just women?
Ziada: No, all the audience clapped because he took it from a traditional point of view. You know, people will believe you more – and believed Obama, and Obama was credible more for them because he spoke, first, about tradition, about Islam. And from this, he speaks about women's rights. He refused extremism. He rejected extremism, which we all reject, but he did not reject Islam. So everyone clapped, including men who are against women’s rights or consider women's rights not something good to speak about. Everyone clapped.

