We're all talking about whether or not the Lieberman-in-blackface graphic was justifiable, but I'd like to know what the hell it meant.

When I see an old (or not-so-old) photo of a white man in blackface, I read the white person behind the burnt cork as the one wielding power over the race he's embodying. Is that how we're supposed to read Lieberman? We're Democrats/blacks and he's the white man/Republican pretending to be one of us so he can mock us? In that case, then what's Clinton's role as the white man not in blackface with an arm around Joe's shoulder? Does he represent the true face of the GOP? Hunh?

Or are we supposed to read "black Joe" as really black -- a foolishly loyal slave/servant? If so, again, what is Clinton? His massa? Again, hunh? And would massa be so familiar with the colored help?

Joe's head on a poodle's body -- that I would get. Or Bush as ventriloquist and Joe as dummy. Or Joe as Judy Garland singing "Dear Mr. Flightsuit" -- sure. But this? It was an image that posed a real risk to Ned Lamont, and to all of us as Internet liberals, and did it even make sense?

****

UPDATE: Well, I'm a few beats behind -- via Shakespeare's Sister, I've now had a look at the race-card-playing Lieberman flier that inspired the blackface image. OK, it's more coherent than I thought (Lieberman is a phony friend of blacks) -- but the image invokes not a phony friend of blacks but a mocker of blacks. To me it's still garbled. And what's the point of giving Clinton sunglasses? Lieberman is Zip Coon and Clinton is a Blues Brother? One more time: hunh?