You know he wants to

He would have been better off staying with one version of what happened.

is contradicted by his statement.

From your link:

I conceded that. Based on the evidence presented to me at the time. The most likely explanation, that it was indeed me in the photo.


In the hours since I made my statement yesterday, I reflected with my family and classmates from the time and affirmed my conclusion that I am not the person in that photo. While I did not appear in this photo, I am not surprised by its appearance in the EV MS year book. In the place and time when I grew up, many actions that we rightfully recognize as a born today were commonplace.


So he says initially that it is most likely that it was him. A qualified yes.

Now, he can conclusively state that it is not him.


Many find these 2 contradictory statements to be not credible.

Your contention was that his new story is that he did nothing of the sort - when the heart of his statement on Saturday was an admission that he did don blackface for a Michael Jackson impression - exactly the same sort of thing he admitted to in his Friday statement.

As to your new assertion -

it's really not that complicated. He knew he did blackface in med school. He was confronted (for the first time) on Friday with a picture, attributed to him, of someone not immediately recognizable in blackface.

Given the rush to judgment, he knew how offensive the image was and that he had to act quickly - so he admitted to the offense, because he knew the heart of the allegation was accurate - he did do blackface in med school.

After having more opportunity to review the photo, he realized this particular photo wasn't him (even though- as he acknowledges - it could well have been him).

Would you have preferred he denied it was him when he didn't originally recognize the photo - knowing, all the while, that it could well have been him? His admission may well have been klutzy, but I prefer that he acknowledge and apologize for the spirit of the allegation - rather than deny it because he thinks he'll be able to wiggle out by proving that particular photo wasn't actually him (even though he did commit the offensive act)?

But his story changed substantially. He could have said he was uncertain, but he did not.

Perhaps the question caught him off guard and he initially responded truthfully, and with 24 hours of hindsight, decided on another approach.

I have no special insight into Northam's behavior, but given what we now know, if it had been known 2 years ago, we would not be having this conversation.

and only an idiot would buy a story that patently goddamned absurd.

and who has recently looked at 4-decade old photos and who was only able to recognize myself because I was wearing the same clothing I work in other photos - and in some photos I recognized myself but could swear I'd never owned what I was wearing.

You're perfectly free to disbelieve him. I've lived enough - and have enough direct experience with yearbooks in that era - to have predicted that he didn't see the photo before Friday. I also know that there are photos of me from that era in which I can only identify myself by context.

His context was that he did do blackface in med school, so when a photo of him in blackface in that era appeared, he did what seems to me to be the honorable thing - acknowledged and apologized for his bad behavior (rather than deny it on a technicality that he didn't believe that photo was him).

But how about keeping it civil. I won't call you an idiot for disbelieving him - and you don't call me an idiot for believing him.

you don’t believe him. You know in your heart it’s a BS excuse but you’re going to run with it in order to protect a fellow Democrat.

I guarantee before he admitted to being in that photo he saw it — it was flooding the media. He wasn’t confused about which photo or some stupid Michael Jackson bullshit; that’s all just cheapjack excuses concocted hours later.

You are free to believe it is a BS excuse. But stop assuming (and asserting) that everyone else feels the same - or that they are an idiot if they don't.

I don't protect people, or make excuses for people, based on party. If you look back at my posts in connection with #metoo, for example, you will see I am virtually always speaking out against the tide of popular DU opinion that excuses every dem accused of sexual impropriety as a troll operation or motivated by politics, while calling for the head of every Republican against whom similar accusations are made. I apply the same standards to members of both parties.

As it pertains to this instance, I happen to believe him - based on my experiences as a yearbook photographer, and of recently looking at photos of myself and friends from the same era.

And aside from anything else, why would any sane individual trade the crisp, clean, and done explanation offered on Friday for the really messy one (that essentially admits the same behavior - less a specific image), that continues the focus on the yearbook for another news day - unless it is true. There is no political gain in moving from Friday's explanation to Saturdays - and anyone saavy enough to be elected governor is certainly saavy enough to realize that.

I'm still not understanding this fully, but if students were allowed to submit photos toward their own yearbook pages then I find it even less credible that Northam claims it's not him, or that he is just finding out about this now and piecing it together.

We're supposed to believe the yearbook staff correctly inserted some pictures of Northam that he submitted, but simultaneously they found a blackface/KKK photo that Northam did not submit -- and that does not include Northam himself -- and included that as the centerpiece of Ralph Northam's page, yet 35 years later Northam was not aware of the problem and he can't recognize whether or not it is him in the photo.

Whew. Long sentence but longer odds. I don't care what period of my life we're talking about. Show me a picture and I can identify whether or not it's me. Countless reference points, even if wearing some type of disguise. This is not much of a disguise.

Remember when Johnie Cochran put on the stocking cap during the O.J. trial? Disgusting verdict but some great lawyering. I thought this quote was right up there with, "doesn't fit...must acquit." Cochran said, "If I put this knit cap on, who am I?...I'm Johnnie Cochran with a knit cap on. From two blocks away, O.J. Simpson is O.J. Simpson."

Ralph Northam knows damn well it is him in that picture. That was the reason for his initial explanation. He assumed everyone else could tell also, like O.J. Simpson from two blocks away. But once Northam slept on it, and listened to a few others, he realized that his own self-identification is not as clear cut to others. All that black paint and 35 years later is enough to enable a pathetic lie. I hope he gets called on it, from a fellow classmate or someone who had involvement with that yearbook.

and the offending photo appears on the page with the photos he submitted.

That part of the yearbook I worked on works differently than ours did. We didn't have pages for individual students. We had group photos (and the photographers were very careful about tracking student names in those), but attaching names to faces in candid shots was a less rigid process and never included review by those depicted. So in our yearbook - even if the yearbook had sought and accepted photos from individuals (I don't believe we did) there would have been a number of shots submitted by yearbook photographers that were not necessarily accurately (or at all) labeled.

So take a serious look at the sequence of events:

He acknowledges and apologizes for blackface, as depicted on his page in the yearbook - it is clear and offensive, and he does not try to distance himself from it.

The next day, he acknowledges a different incident of blackface - no picture, but an acknowledgement that he engaged in it - and that he believed it to be the photo on the page he was shown the previos day.

As of Friday, there was a damaging image of him, he owned it and made a clear, unequivocal apology, and he is ready to move on - if possible.

Why would he muddy the waters with the more complex explanation Saturday? Anyone, let alone anyone with the saavy to win an election for governor (or his advisors) would have recognized that the Saturday explanation would drag the story on at least another day's news cycle - and would be more challenging to move beyond. The only rational explanation is that it is the truth, and - as messy as it was - he wanted to clear the waters all at once.

(And - based on my personal experience with yearbooks in that era, and a recent romp through photos from the mid-late 70s, his explanations make sense.)

Let him work through his issues as a private citizen. We have a republic to save. This is no time for distractions.

No matter which of the 2 explanations is correct, at this point I think he has no credibility.

And as you note, he is a distraction.

and there are plenty of people to fan the flames.

Northam could put out the fire by heeding the call of just about every prominent national Democrat,just about every prominent Virginia Democrat, and just about every progressive organization and resign.

If he believes in the issues as he says he does, and believes in the Democratic party as he say he does, he would heed the calls to resign.

It was occasioned by yearbook pictures, and an offensive nick name that Northam apparently was awarded.

No matter who started the fire, in the absence of fuel, there can be no fire.