Blog P.I.

Note: Post updated below.

Today James Taranto and Michelle Malkin caught Jane Hamsher attaching to her Huffington Post column a Photoshop job of Bill Clinton standing a Joe Lieberman in blackface. Taranto: “Are there no limits to the racism of the ‘progressive’ left?” Malkin: “I am so sure the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP and the civil rights brigade will be protesting this disgusting use of blackface in political discourse.” Mark Coffey has an open letter to Arianna.

So then: The picture disappeared from the site within hours, and the comments — many, but not all sent by Mr. Taranto and Ms. Malkin — filled up with comments critical, sarcastic, but you wouldn’t say abusive. And yet, every single comment was flagged abusive, even: “Good post—and right on target. But the picture isn’t helpful, though God knows Holy Joe would put on blackface if it pleased Bush.” Not to mention: “There should be a feature that would let us flag this article as abusive.”

Tonight, if you go to Firedoglake right now, the top post, “About That Graphic…” begins:

I sincerely apologize to anyone who was genuinely offended by the choice of images accompanying my blog post today on the Huffington Post. It’s also important to note that I do not, nor have I ever worked for Ned Lamont’s campaign. However, at their request, I removed the image earlier today.

Unfortunately, Senator Lieberman’s campaign has used this in attempt to hurt Ned and score political points, mustering their own faux indignation in attempt to further distract from the issues important to the voters of Connecticut.”

She rejects “absurd charges of racism,” but then she also concedes: “I regret it and I invite them to take it up with the person who did it, namely me.” It’s not quite a Mel Gibson apology, but at least she didn’t call on Malkin and the Lieberdems to meet with her and help her to heal. I digress.

It’s unfortunate, inasmuch as the actual bloggers in Connecticut have been helping make this race the most exciting of the year. And not just their blogging, but also their extensive use of YouTube.

A couple days ago I explained how foolhardy was the NRSC’s attempt to tarnish Jon Tester by association with a troll at Daily Kos. It’s not always fair to use bloggers in campaigns, but Hamsher is not a nobody, even if she sometimes sounds like a troll.

If nothing else, the artwork sure was a non sequitur: Yes, the column is about old Joementum, but the point of contention was Wal-Mart, not race. The only hint that is still available on the site is the credit to somone named Darkblack who appears to be a regular contributor of artwork to Firedoglake; one of FDL’s distinctive features is the submitted artwork, including plenty of Photoshop work. (Plus, this HuffPo column also appears to largely be a quotation from Digby, but that might just be the sponsored ad mucking up the layout.)

I’m no fan of Ms. Hamsher’s Coulter-left (or Malkin-left) style, but I think at least this time she realizes her HuffPo photo was the kind of thing she herself would have seized on and flogged mercilessely if the blackface was on the other site*.

Update: The Courant gives it a few column inches; Dan Balz gives it a few more.

TPM Muckraker’s headline — “Lieberman Attacks Blogger Over Blackface Pic” — gets it exactly backward. Matt Stoller thinks the best term for Hamsher’s graphical selection is “edgy.”

Filling in for Reynolds, Ann Althouse pegs it as a “sorry if you were offended form of apology with the extra oomph of implying that a lot of the offense was bogus and an immediate descent into justification for giving offense.” TPM and Stoller are just glad to help.

The pro-Lamont bloggers actually based in Connecticut are sticking to the program, at least on the page. Yet independent Genghis Conn, on the other hand, catches Lamont going from “I’m very appreciative of the blogs.” to “I don’t know anything about the blogs.” Ouch. One Jane Hamsher comes along, and this is the thanks you get?

[Update: Jump removed to accomodate updates.]

*Actually, the one place where it is still up is Malkin’s blog.

Update: Only now, Slate is using it to accompany Dickerson’s take on the “bizarre Lieberman blackface scandal,” quoth the editors. Actually, so is Football Fans For Truth. Malkin has not just the blackface picture, but Steve Gilliard’s “Sambo” photo, a Tim Kaine had to extricate himself from late in the 2005 VA GOV campaign. So I’m just asking here, when is it considered outrage, and when is it evidence? So I understand it that Hamsher and Huffington are not allowed to post it — so what rules apply to others? Is it robbed of its power because it’s already been held out for criticism?

Nothing out there about Slate’s usage just yet. Will there be an email campaign to Jacob Weisberg?

P.S. Dales is right to point out the blackface photo is still up on Firedoglake, insofar as it’s still in a public folder. Of course, what’s important to remember is that it was there in the first place.