Backlash Against Media Smears in the Heartland
On Tuesday, Washington Post associate editor Kevin Merida published a front page article ostensibly decrying racisim in Indiana and elsewhere based upon spurious evidence. Merida, an African-American and author of a 2007 book that was fiercely critical of Justice Clarence Thomas, displayed subjective journalism at its finest with this “news” story. He also revealed an agenda on the part of the mainstream media — used the following day by Ruben Navarrette of CNN.com — to demean and label as “racist” anyone not voting for Obama.
In his 2,000 word piece, Merida recalled his travels throughout the state, which included, as he pointed out to me via email, “hanging out at the Applebees bar in Kokomo and talking to Obama staff and volunteers.” He quotes local residents about their feelings towards Obama, regularly portraying their words along racial lines. The “story from the trail” he opens with is about a girl who actually postponed her sophomore year at college “to hopscotch America stumping for Barack Obama.” Her experience with someone who said “I’ll never vote for a black person” stands as the centerpiece of Merida’s theory of what towns in Indiana are about. In the first half of the article — which Merida, a veteran reporter, wisely realizes is all most readers read — he harps upon the “horrible response” and “anti-black sentiment” the Obama volunteers encountered near Wal-Mart and on street corners.
Ironically, later in the article, Merida notes that “Obama campaign officials say such incidents are isolated, that the experience of most volunteers and staffers has been overwhelmingly positive.” And he is even more generous by citing an Obama campaign statement in response to questions about encounters with racism that reads in part:
After campaigning for 15 months in nearly all 50 states, Barack Obama and our entire campaign have been nothing but impressed and encouraged by the core decency, kindness, and generosity of Americans from all walks of life. The last year has only reinforced Senator Obama’s view that this country is not as divided as our politics suggest.
Anyone reading the full article might then request clarification to determine whether the Obama folks felt there was a lot of racism — as the opening of the piece and its title suggest — or whether the positive experiences far outweighed the isolated incidents of racism. When the most liberal senator in America receives nearly 49% of the vote in a historically red state, the latter rings more true.
There are certainly racists and bigots in America. In the 42 months since President Bush’s re-election, I have visited all the lower 48 states and can tell you some level of racism exists in all colors in all states. But as a historian, I can’t help but think America is the least racist nation ever created, in spite of the stain of slavery. Many immigrants I know also concur. They’ll cite European history for ethnic insensitivity, and the racial intolerance in their native lands of the Middle East, Asia, or South America for examples.
In two years as an Indiana resident, I have been to 91 of the 92 counties in the Hoosier State, and have enjoyed conversations with all sorts of genuine folks who epitomize “Hoosier hospitality.” The three cities in question in Merida’s article — Muncie, Kokomo, and Vincennes — are all college towns, the former two with ethnically diverse populations. Muncie has a major land grant school (the very liberal Ball State University), while Kokomo is a working class city with a Democrat mayor. Vincennes is a historic city — Indiana’s first (and its first territorial capital) at 275 years old — and also has a Democratic mayor. No facts show these Indiana cities being any more racially insensitive than Eugene, Oregon; Rutland, Vermont; or Duluth, Minnesota.
In his tale, Merida conveniently leaves out mention of the 21,000 that rallied for Obama in downtown Indianapolis the evening prior to the primary. Many of the assembled were not only white, but small town farmers and “good ol’ boys” who made the trip up to the state capital on a weeknight. Do a few vandals in one small town change that? Hillary Clinton’s headquarters in Terre Haute mysteriously burned down last month while she was in town with Bill, and that hardly made the news. This would not be the first time some irresponsible journalism was done by the Washington Post about Muncie, Indiana, in the past year.
Merida’s observation that “a group of black high school students [from Kokomo] holding up Obama signs along U.S. 31″ had drivers “roll down their windows and yell out a common racial slur for African Americans, according to Obama campaign staffers” is discouraging, but any common observer knows that such things happen to the military in Berkeley or President Bush all the time. And despite what professors felt at the time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had a warmer reception at Columbia University in 2007 than did John McCain in 2006 or Douglas Feith at Georgetown this past year.
Nonetheless, getting harangued by high school kids while you drive to work can be irksome, can’t it? And frankly, in Muncie, it’s totally understandable that people get frustrated with some 19-year-old girl, who likely has never worked or raised children, bothering them while they are getting groceries after a long day’s work. I would too, irrespective of political leaning. How do you think a preachy conservative inundating houses in the inner city with McCain propaganda would be treated?
Sentient readers should weigh these anecdotes alongside the tens of thousands of incidents where people say they are voting for Obama because of his race or the fact that 90% of the black vote is going his way.
Latest numbers show that well over 90% of Americans are upset by the racism of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Combine that with Obama’s hard left politics and connections with radical organizations and you have the source of many Americans’ anger. This is why polls show nearly half of Hoosier Democrats, as in most states, now find Obama untrustworthy. Race is rarely mentioned, unless the media is doing so. And again, to his credit, Obama agrees. Only one in six West Virginians said race played a factor when they voted Tuesday. Indiana’s numbers were the same.
Many have simply judged the content of Mr. Obama’s character or his lack of leadership experience. On that basis, they believe he is unqualified for the highest office in the world. Most folks I know who do not support Obama would gladly vote for a black man if he were the right person. Most often, names like Colin Powell, J.C. Watts, Lynn Swann, Alan Keyes, Condoleezza Rice, Thomas Sowell, and Walter Williams come up, as they do in Merida’s piece toward the end.
Will this election reach the point where any and all criticism or opposition to Barack Obama will be labeled “racism”? It seems the Illinois senator still prefers to avoid that. What the Washington Post article — by dropping in nothing more than a few random stories — really shows is that if Obama ultimately loses in the fall, it will be due to his views, inexperience, and lack of authenticity, not because of his skin color.
Seems Barack knows this, as do most Hoosiers and Americans. It’s time for the media to admit it, too.
Ari Kaufman resides in Indianapolis where he is a military historian and an Associate Fellow at the Sagamore Institute. A former Los Angeles schoolteacher, he is the author of Reclamation: Saving our schools starts from within.






FROM THE AUTHOR: “Will this election reach the point where any and all criticism or opposition to Barack Obama will be labeled “racism”? It seems the Illinois senator still prefers to avoid that.”
ANSWER: From „Bambi vs. Godzilla“ by David Mamet, c. 2007, pp 132-135
“The talentless, misguided, or exploitative have long employed supradramatic devices in the construction of the drama, … as these very human virtues, practiced in the wider world, are understood (subconsciously) by the viewer to trump an interest in mere entertainment.”
“ ’Do you appreciate the film, or do you hate the deaf/gays/blacks?’ This is the (again, conscious or unconscious) mechanism of the issue drama.”
“Imagine, similarly, a candidate for office who asks for your vote because she is blind. ‘Yes,’ one might think, ‘that is certainly a shame, but I, the voter, pay taxes and so am entitled to representation. I will cast or withhold my vote according to my understanding of how this candidate’s views reflect or inform my own; I fail to see how her affliction enters into this equation.’ “
“But we are biddable. The suspension of disbelief necessary to the dramatic transaction opens the door to its misuse by both the criminal and the well meaning.”
“The ancient joke has a member of the majority culture taking a shortcut home through a dark alley in which he encounters a member of a despised minority. The minority fellow threatens the other with a knife, the proposed victim produces a revolver and says, ‘Isn’t that just like a (insert favorite racially derogatory term) to bring a knife to a gunfight?’ “
“Well, hijacking of the dramatic transaction is bringing a gun to a knife fight.”
Well done.
I must admit to having a strong prejudice against Democratic politicians from Chicago Illinois.
This is the bottom line: American voters would easily support a center-right black candidate. “Barry” Obama is not being rejected because of the color of his skin—but the content of his character. He is a left-wing ideologue masquerading as something of a moderate. Obama has proven his willingness to align himself with our country’s enemies. Nobody forced him to attend Jeremiah Wright’s church and receive financial support from terrorist Bill Ayers.
Obama is also benefiting from what I cynically describe as the Sidney Poitier factor. Many conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity naively fail to realize the extent of his dangerousness. They simply do not sufficiently fear Obama. His charm has even seduced these supposedly hard right radio talk show hosts.
Hey, David!
Aside from pointedly attacking Obama’s record, associations, ideology, and plans, which they have been doing consistently and well, what would you have Rush and Sean do? How would you have them express fear and loathing on the radio?
“I must admit to having a strong prejudice against Democratic politicians from Chicago Illinois.”
And that’s the another issue going back in history—and is that racist or bigoted, since BHO is from Chicago?
Look, I have lived on the near west side of Indy most of my life. The area was 99% white 30 years ago, and now it’s a mix of Asian, white, black and Latino. In fact, between where I live and downtown, there is a 5-7 block stretch that is now 100% Mexican/Latino. Does it cause some to look twice? Sure. Has any racial incident erupted that I know of? No, sir. Would this “peace” be the same in LA, NY or DC? I’m not so sure. Check last week’s news about the riot between Latins and Blacks at the high school in LA.
Indiana is no more racist and maybe less racist than any state I have visited.
This article the author cites is proof that the big city media will do whatever it takes to smear and humiliate middle American folks in order to get THEIR candidate (Obama) elected. It’s angering. I’ve been a Democrat most of my life, but between 9-11 and Howard Dean taking over and pushing the party way left of center, I am now independent and will vote for McCain in the fall. It’s a no brainer.
Oh, and as Kaufman points out, if you read the entire article, you’ll see that even Merida shows that all these racial incidents were scattered and hardly a big deal. The Obama camp also says it’s been overwhelmingly positive out there on the trail.
So yes, this article is, as Kaufman writes, “irresponsible journalism.”
Thanks.
“…what would you have Rush and Sean do?”
I would strongly urge them to keep their priorities straight. John McCain is an imperfect candidate. I have often stated my criticism of the gentleman. Nonetheless, it is imperative that he win in November. McCain is, by far, the lesser of evils. Obama is a very dangerous man. I am convinced that it is political correctness, as strange as that may seem, which keeps Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity from confronting the awfulness of a potential Obama administration. We have been programmed by our politically correct culture to perceive any seemingly warm and friendly “man of color” as some sort of innocuous Sidney Poitier.
Journalists are some of the most unethical people in society. Many who visited the MinuteMen along the border made attempts to bait them into racist comments. All the while they have been the primary enablers of vile racial hucksters like Sharpton and the NAACP, all of whom have a role in the devastation of the inner cities.
David Thomson, I’ve watched quite a bit of Sean Hannity on Fox and there is no way in hell he has been soft on anything associated with Obama.
I have no plans to vote for Obama but I sure as heck can’t figure out what you’re objecting to re Hannity. I haven’t listened to Rush much but I highly doubt he has been soft on Obama as well.
I am personally not a fan of any of the candidates. I feel that either McCain or Hilary would be a better fit then Obama. White Americans, and especially white youth are flocking to him as a candidate not for, “change” as he preaches, but as a way to show they are not raciest. This is no reason to vote for someone. The guilt has to stop in order to get the correct person in the Whitehouse. I find that the media and Obama’s campaign are playing the race card because, lets face it people are scared to be labeled as raciest. This decision is not about race it is about being the right person for the job. I personally find Obama to be preachy and insincere in positions.
On a side note, I have been to Indy for a visit and found the people to be genuine, hard working, and liberal in a racial sense. The media portraying Middle America a raciest is only exasperating the situation. I just hope when Obama doesn’t get elected Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson don’t hold a rally about him losing being based on color, because it is clearly not.
Obama is also benefiting from what I cynically describe as the Sidney Poitier factor. Many conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity naively fail to realize the extent of his dangerousness. They simply do not sufficiently fear Obama. His charm has even seduced these supposedly hard right radio talk show hosts.
I’d say that Limbaugh is much more affected by his visceral, personal hatred of McCain. The same seems to also apply to Mark Levin and some of the others.
I’m reminded of our 2000 move from Houston to Indy. In Indy, we occasionally listened to the Tejano music station KQQK. The DJs would seamlessly switch from Spanish to English and back in the same sentence. Shortly after coming to Indy, I was driving around checking out the radio stations on the dial. Lo and behold, a Mexican station in Indiana! Like I never left Houston. There is now a Latino business district along West Washington, tire dealers and all. The powers-that-be should discourage dependency on government and encourage free enterprise, which is the real way for the new arrivals to get ahead.
The failed model, that of dependency, has caused many problems among those local African Americans and others who bought into it. The local Democratic Party machine that promotes dependency has cashed in nicely but has not truly helped its constituents.
Correction–Above (7:50 am), I meant to say that in Houston we occasionally listened to KQQK.
“if Obama ultimately loses in the fall, it will be due to his views, inexperience, and lack of authenticity, not because of his skin color,”
well said Ari.
It isn’t Limbaugh’s or Sean’s responsibility to get McCain elected. It’s McCain’s responsibility to convince conservatives like me to vote for him. So far, he has consistently failed to do so.
Come November, I may well vote for McCain but if so, it won’t be because I like him. If “None of the Above” were a binding option, I’d select that in a heartbeat. I truly believe none of them will make a good president. Of the 3 remaining candidates – and no, I wouldn’t vote for Ron Paul under any circumstances – Obama is IMO the worst but that’s only a matter of degree. McCain isn’t much better.
“The local Democratic Party machine that promotes dependency has cashed in nicely but has not truly helped its constituents.”
The Carson Machine has done to Indy blacks what Jesse and Al have done to blacks for four decades: keep them down and discourage hard work, while “hypocriticall” making $ for themselves and accumulating power.
Democratic “Machines” are the true racists. They have not gone far from Civil War, KKK and Jim Crow South days, but instead of white Democrats lynching blacks; now black Democrats destroy hope amongst their own…and yet 90% of blacks vote Democrat? Orwell must be spinning.
How else can you explain the fact that Andre Carson, a black Muslim, who finished 88 out of 89 in his class the Indiana Law Enforcement Academy (after formerly being a gang member) is now Indy’s congressmen at age 33, and is expected to win again in November over a VERY qualified GOP candidate.
Naturally, he is a steadfast supporter of Obama.
Does dumb Mr. Merida (and you can tell him I said that) just assume that anyone who is not voting for Obama is by definition is a racist, instead of maybe, just maybe, they have decided he is the wrong candidate for his lack of experience, his being a detriment to Israel’s survival, and his willnigness to negotiate with terrorists. Tell Mr. Merida the dumbhead that he should stop playing the race card every chance he gets. Of course there are people who are racist. Always have been, always will be. But that is not the main or even an important issue into who should be elected President of the United States and why.
well done–cogently argued. The WaPo piece was much a do about nothing. As you point out there is racism galore in this world–has anybody ever spoken to a perosn from se Asia and ask them what they thought of black americans or even caucasian americans–the most racist and ethnicentric people in the world reside there. And as you point out similar prjeudices exist through south america and I don’t have to remind people of the virulent anti-semtiism of ALL europeans.
It is my personal opinion that everyone is “racist” and those who cry the loudest that they are not, are usually worse than those who simply ignore it. Having spent much time in Indiana as a visitor when my son attended Rose Hulman I find Indiana to be no different from Ohio or any other diverse state. The biggest differences in this country are to be found in the contrast between big cities and rural environs. AS for Obama, I believe he is the probable Democratic nominee now because of the early caucus decisions. I wonder if those early states were to vote now, if the result would be the same? Another great piece, Mr. Kaufman
The unqualified novice Andre Carson was deemed worthy of becoming our Congressman because of his last name.
The Carson family invited arch-racist demagogue Louis Farrakhan to speak at Andre’s grandmother’s public funeral (she was Congresswoman Julia Carson). So there is a racism problem in Indy, only not the type alleged in the Washington Post!
“Does dumb Mr. Merida (and you can tell him I said that) just assume that anyone who is not voting for Obama is by definition is a racist.”
Yes, as does Ruben Navarrette, most black leaders, 90% of university professors, 75% of collegians, his wife (for sure, though she is a TRULY DEVOUT racist), the entire news and editorial staff of the NY Times, Chi Tribune, Wash Post, LA Times, SF Chronicle, et al.
That’s the sad part of this election the Dems have given us. If you don’t vote for this unqualified, affirmative action candidate, you’re a racist.
I’d argue it means you have a brain, are not a lefty radical, and have thought thru the candidates, eh?
The more I talk to white folks and black folks about their reasons for voting or not voting for Obama, usually the oppossite of what the media is saying becomes true: I’ve witnessed more blacks voting for Obama because of his skin color and sub-culture traits, than whites NOT voting for Obama because of his skin color. Of course, the media wouldn’t broadcast news with examples of this claim, as then THEY would be the ones labeled racist.
On a more personal note, during my one trip to Indi, and being hispanic, I can’t say that I was once treated in a way that would suggest racism when I interacted with the good people of the state.
Just watched Obama “defend” himself from Pres. Bush’s comments yesterday via foxnews.com. (BTW, if you have not seen the FULL speech from the President yesterday, take a look—it was incredible, though the media could care less).
It amazes me how sensitive Barack Hussein is, when the President clearly did NOT call him out.
No matter though, “Barry” is on the defensive, calling Bush and McCain names (as children do), saying we want to “stay not win” in Iraq and he wants to “end” the war. Hm….
Best part is watching the folks behind BHO and listening to the crowd while he speaks on real issues like foreign policy. They are SO bored. Folks are yawning; there are few cheers; Obama is mumbling and stumbling over words (he’s NOT a good speaker when talking off the cuff on real matters), etc.
To the left, fighting Jihadists is boring. They could care less. So ignorant, yet telling.
We need more folks in the Media like Mr. Kaufman. Tell it like is instead of spreading the ridiculous notion of “if you are not an activist you are a racist.”
Funny that Merida’s article doesn’t mention the racism that Obamabots themselves throw at other people. Intimidating voters at caucuses, calling black people that don’t fall in line all kinds of unmentionable names. Smearing every non-black person as a racist, bigot, neanderthal etc.
Why is Obama’s campaign not taking any accountability in stirring the pot from South Carolina onwards. Some of these incidents are the acts of idiots indeed. But some of the milder hostility is definitely blowback from the hyper-PC crap shoved down people’s throats for years by the far-left wings.
And while racism is reprehensible and regrettable why does the Democratic Party think sexism is the bee’s knees.
Isn’t it strange that Obama has not in any instance missed a single comment from anyone that offended him in some way,
AND YET
He missed all of his Reverends comments, his wifes comments, his terrorist friends comment and actions??????????
HIS quickness to be a victim every time he hears a statement that closely relates to him is a learned reaction from the Affirmative Action days.
I have been to Indy to visit family twice in the past 18 months and have never felt a twinge of racism. It is no different than here in Southern California, maybe better. The media makes things up these days, it seems. I have no idea what the WaPo writer is really writing about. Seems like lazy journalism and pro-Obama propaganda to me….Great piece, Ari!
I believe that racism exists more in the minds of the beholder. If people want to see racism they will find it in even the most inocent of gestures.
What!? Obama is black!? Who knew?
Actually, I don’t care about that. I could vote for a black person, say like Colin Powell or Condi Rice. But I won’t vote for socialists of any race, religion, or creed. Obama is a socialist, so I won’t be voting for him for that reason.
The so-called mainstream media, who are predominantly Dems, wants to set the stage in the event Obama loses. The narrative is as follows:
Gore lost because the election was stolen.
Kerry lost because Americans, Kansans in particular , are stupid.
If Obama loses it is because America is racist.
Therefore there is nothing wrong with the Democratic Party. The problem lies in the American people.
The Dems and their “reality based community” have become a joke. If Obama loses, it will be because of the following fact:
Extremists, either left or right, tend to not attract majorities. For many moderates, the Democratic party has become too leftist and elitist. That’s why the Dem nominees lose. The Dems don’t see this. Too bad for them. They’ll keep putting forth nominees that don’t appeal to majorities and they’ll keep handing elections to the Repubs.
If you look at the history of race riots, police beatings and such, places like New York, Los Angeles, Philadephia, and Chicago have more than their share of racial incidents. Yet, liberal pundits love to talk about racism in the South and Middle America.
Prejudice (a much more accurate term) exists whether you admit it or not. Pretending it doesn’t exist isn’t a solution. Reporters aren’t making this stuff up because people want to read about how bigoted America still is. It’s an unpopular and uncomfortable subject. My own parents (Mexican-Americans living in Texas) would never, ever vote for a black man. My 11 year old son, on the other hand, needs me to explain to him why his white grandparents are actually “brown” and why my mixed-race boyfriend is “black” although his skin is light brown, and why white people are called white when they are actually apricot-colored. Maybe when his generation grows up we’ll all think this conversation is as absurd as he does. Until then, if you who are posting here can truly say you don’t judge a person’s character by their skin color, then good for you. But to say that prejudice doesn’t exist here in the good ole USA is like saying that child abuse doesn’t exist, because you don’t know any people who do that.
“What!? Obama is black!? Who knew?”
Good point. His mother was white; he was reared in a white family; attended all the best white schools, etc. If he were a GOPer, he’d have been called an Uncle Tom years ago, and have no chance to even comes close to the presidency. Ask Condi Rice or Alan Keyes.
“The so-called mainstream media, who are predominantly Dems, wants to set the stage in the event Obama loses. The narrative is as follows: Gore lost because the election was stolen. Kerry lost because Americans, Kansans in particular, are stupid. If Obama loses it is because America is racist.”
Democrats are the little children they never had—because they are arrogant and selfish. Do you realize that “What’s the Matter with Kansas” book is required reading on most college campuses? So much for objectivity. Get ‘em while their young—just like the Communists and Nazis did. Brainwash’em into hating America and all it stands for.
And as someone who foolishly voted for al-Gore, I realized, after EVERY recount was done three times, that Gore LOST! Why can’t Michael Moore and the little babies at Berkeley and Brandeis understand this? And you know what, on 9-11, thank goodness al-Gore did lose.
As to:
“Therefore there is nothing wrong with the Democratic Party. The problem lies in the American people.”
Exactly. Despite all evidence showing America is not racist and their beloved Eurabia is as racist as anywhere, the Dems blame America if Obama loses, not his horrific, naive politics. They’re insulting to me, and to all Americans.
But latte libs do NOT live in America. They live in their rich suburbs where no blacks are allowed, so thus, they gobble up this garbage as they bow to profs, NY Times writers and WaPo lying racial dividers.
The smears are only just beginning, but you’d never know that if you solely get your news from the USA Today, John Stewart, Hardball or Newsweek, where we’re told that Bush lies for oil, and ONLY the GOP smears, and that’s how Republicans win elections; not that the fact that conservative politics might make more sense, or that the Soros wing of the Dems smears Jews, Gen. Petreaus, Bush, McCain, etc.
In an honest world, most of the media, al-Gore, Soros and most profs would be behind bars. They are more dangerous than Barack Hussein Obama.
If – if – Obama lost those contests because of “racism,” then he’s certainly won many more states than he’s lost because of that “racism.”
Why is it that 70% of whites can vote for Clinton and 90% of blacks can vote for Obama in a state, and the result is considered evidence of racism…harbored by white people?
White people are a far more normative group. Black activists and academics are always whining about how “whiteness is normative” and how white America is what’s considered “normal.” Don’t you think the group that’s considered “normal” is a hell of a lot more likely to pick a candidate on the merits (rather than race) than the group that defines itself as an oppressed ‘other’?
Not that I buy into the normativity argument (which is basically an elaborate rationalization for affirmative action), but it just goes to show that these charges of racism don’t stand up, even if we play the game entirely on the whiners’ intellectual terms.
Barack Obama’s remarks at the San Francisco fund raiser (attendance limited to invitees only) reveal that he harbors Marxist ideology and may indeed be a Marxist. His characterizaion of rural Pennsylvanians as “bitter” and “clinging to” their guns and their religion because of their bitterness, reveals Mr Obama as one cut from the same cloth as Karl Marx, famous for “Religion is the opiate of the masses.”
It won’t work anymore; if you are over 40 and live in a large Northeast or Midwest urban area,you have probably become impervious to this accusation.
The cry of racism has become the proverbial boy who yelled fire.
Once every value, opinion and expression has been subject to charges of racism,often with no justifiable basis,one really could care less.
Why does Obama not mention the obvious racism of the black American Democratic constituency? I’m just amazed with a party that is so excited about a candidate with no experience and no message. Its as amusing to see how self-centered he is immediately jumping on Bush’s comments yesterday, the whole world revolves around himself. Now I could care less what ‘race’(as defined by liberals as a means to identify ‘types’ of humans), if someone QUALIFIED who happen to be black was running, like an Alan Keys, Colin Powell, or Condoleeza Rice, I’d vote for them in a second. I’m starting to get the sense that the Democrats are starting to get a little bit of cold feet now that they’ve stuck themselves with Obama.
90% of blacks did not vote for Jesse Jackson or Alan Keys. I have yet to hear a sound bite of an African American saying they could not vote for a white person…just because they were white. All blacks, as well as whites THANK GOD, do not all think or act in lock step. THANK GOD some people have the courage to put aside sterotypical thinking.
IMHO to not Vote for Obama solely because he is black (or Hillary because she is a woman), is like not accepting blood or a kidney from a black person even though you know it could save your life. Pathetic….Isn’t It!
Ten thousand fools proclaim themselves into obscurity, while one wise man forgets himself into immortality.
Martin Luther King Jr.
The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.
John F. Kennedy (1917 – 1963), speech at Vanderbilt University, May 18, 1963
Oh puhleeze, the far left shot their “racism!” and “homophobia!” loads years ago. The words are powerless now, and almost meaningless. I suspect most Indiana and West Virginia don’t really give a crap if somebody from NY or SF or LA refers to them as racist. They’re long used to it by now. They remember being called racist for voting for Ronald Reagan, or being called racist again for supporting Clinton’s welfare reform program, and being called racist basically every five minutes. Who cares at this point.
I heard Merida interviewed on NPR. The guy is the living embodiment of a reverse racist.
Personally, I could go on all day about the many reasons I won’t be voting for Barack Obama without the fact that he’s of mixed race coming up once. Seldom (never?) in presidential politics has such an inexperienced candidate presenting so thin a resume with so few salient accomplishments as BHO been taken so seriously. If I were to hazard a guess, I might say that were BHO a white man (or a man of mixed race who appears white and identifies as white), he’d have been laughed out of the competition long ago (I specify “man” because, IMO, HRC’s list of “qualifications” is nearly as laughable).
Good piece, Ari, but I think you give the candidate a little too much credit for remaining above the color fray. After all, he has plenty of surrogates to play the racist card on his behalf. If–when–he loses, will he really accept it’s “due to his views, inexperience, and lack of authenticity, not because of his skin color”? I have my doubts. My guess is that in matters of race, he has more in common with the Rev. Wright and La Belle Michelle than we’d like to think.
If 85% of black voters voted for Obama, does it mean blacks are racist,much more so than white voters?
What on earth is Jeff C. saying? It’s amazing that the one lefty to comment here makes NO sense. And I love how lefties always quote from the 60s. It’s because they have no facts to use now, so they go way back. They are such ignorant children.
As for Merida, he has his job b/c of affirmative action (as I will always assume until that racist policy is gone), so he should just be happy and stop race-baiting. But that he sounded as Paul said he did on NPR surprises me not one bit.
I don’t know hwo these guilt-ridden latte libs in the DC’ burbs can stomach this garbage day after day. It’s bad enough for me to read the sophomoric IU left-wing grads who fill the pages of the Indianapolis Star each morning.
And the left calls the right racist? Please, racism isn’t just one side or the other. It has to do with the truth of a person’s character and Merida lacks one.
As a resident of Indiana (and an Obama supporter), and as someone who has looked at the exit polls, I don’t think Obama lost Indiana because of racism. Its more likely that republicans doing something like ‘operation chaos’ were large enough to make the less than 2 point different between Obama and Clinton here. Before the Repub nomination was settled Obama won Republicans by a large margin, now that the nomination has been settled on the repub side, Obama has lost republicans. Anyways, I very much think that racism had a major effect in West Virginia. In the exit polls 1 in 5 admitted to the pollsters that they voted for Hillary based on race. In a race where every point matters, that’s 20 points right there! Of course that’s only those who admitted they were racist. Oh and whoever said Obama’s middle name, why do you do that? If its not to try to connect him with terrorists, because of an Arabic name, then you have no reason to say it. I don’t see so many people going out of their way to say Rodham all the time.
By the way, I think that while Hillary has a better chance winning West Virginia in the general, Obama has a better chance winning Virgina than Hillary. Virginia>West Virgina (in delegates)
Thank you very much for your reasoned post!
“If 85% of black voters voted for Obama, does it mean blacks are racist, much more so than white voters?”
Yes, as I learned the definition of “racism” back in school 20 years ago (before the liberal academics changed it to make sure it only applied to whites), it is “treating someone differently based upon race.”
That is what blacks do with Obama. There is NO way he’d get even 50% of those votes if he were saying the same silly things as a white Democrat. If he were a black GOPer, he’d have maybe 20% of the black vote, and if he were a white GOPer with that message, he’d have 5%.
Gotta’ love blacks voting for the party that enslaved them, opposed anti-lynching legislation, supported the KKK, segregated schools, Jim Crow, etc. Then again, as a Jew, my people will support Obama at a 70% clip at least, despite the fact that Hamas supports this Empty Suit. Shameful.
Also, a response to the title of the essay: I really was actually surprised by the news medias lack of coverage of the exit poll data on racism in West Virginia.. it sure took them a while before anybody pointed it out, and it doesn’t seem to have been covered that much.. at least in what I’ve seen and read. From reading this article, it seems the WaPo article was definitely in the wrong. Its interesting that no one has pointed out that the ‘Jesse Jackson won South Carolina’ and other comments may have had a lasting effect.
Blacks may have been mistreated by Democrats in the past, but if you look at our history, our parties have changed as time has gone on. Speaking of which.. I’ve always thought it amusing that the Republican Party is the Grand OLD Party, even though the Democratic Party is much older.
I candidly concede that I have no statistical evidence to offer. Still, it is my guess that for every person who refuses to vote for “Barry” Obama due to his race—another twenty are doing so primarily because of the color of his skin. But why am I compelled to rely on mere speculation? Why aren’t there a number of pollsters willing to find out for sure?
“Blacks may have been mistreated by Democrats in the past, but if you look at our history, our parties have changed as time has gone on.”
WRONG. That’s what teachers and the media say, and though it sounds good, it’s dead wrong.
LBJ cherrypicked on all of Ike’s Civil Rts. Legislation. After all, LBJ opposed anti-lynching legislation over and over, as well as civil rights legislation and integration ideas. He, like all the southern Dems before him, was a bigot.
The Dems controlled the media, presidency, and academia in the 60s, so spin and revisionism was easy to accomplish. JFK was no fan of blacks either.
It is possible that some of the old-fashioned white GOPers in today’s South came from Democrat families, but Bob Byrd—the only former Klansmen in the Senate—is a proud Dem, Al Gore Sr. was a big time racist Southern Dem, and Strom Thurmond was originally a Dem/DixieCrat. He only later switched because he was angry with the party since they would not let him continue to filibuster the 1964 Voting Act because LBJ was now president.
That Goldwater, while running for president in 1964, voted agst the CR Act, was a mistake. But he only voted against it because he preferred the original one—written by Eisenhower.
So, instead of lynching, enslaving and segregating blacks, Democrats now destroy them thru social welfare programs and inner-city “activist” leaders/politicians. It’s still racism.
Ignorance of history (and revisionism) is a proud tradition of today’s Democrat Party.
I’m still in my 20s, but I read. The left watches Idol, The Daily Show and MSNBC.
Obama does not know a thing either.
McCain and Bush are both very well-read historians.
If you don’t have a clue why (after 200+ years of independence and another 200 years or so of existence in which black Americans have either been 3/5ths of a person by law at most or just above nothing–with a short period of “civil rights” after they got their quota of lynchings) black Americans would jump at the chance to be able to vote for he first “viable” Democratic candidate for PRESIDENT (fercrissakes!) then there must really be something to this “white privilege” after all.
Hell, they did not even go 90% until they were SURE that whites would vote for him!
But to no avail apparently.
At long last we have found the racists in America. It’s……
The blacks!
(Are you guys serious?)
If excitement over a possible Obama win with the support of whites (tangible “equality” as opposed to the “You’re equal now!” lip-service they have experienced) is the only effects of 400+ years of shameful treatment, then my goodness they’re forgiving!
I am not for Obama, and think myself conservative, but my goodness, this has to be disingenuous!
This is a historic moment for them. It took Pres. Bush for them to really get into upper levels of government like everyone else had been for centuries. Do you expect them to yawn? Seriously? I’m surprised it is not 100% for Obama.
Forgive the grammar. One arm is in a sling, but I just had to stop the madness. 90% is not surprising, and it is not “racist” either.
and so it begins.
John-”90% is not surprising, and it is not “racist” either.”
No??? You said yourself in the previous post that the reason they vote for him now is because he is the first “viable” Democrat candidate for PRESIDENT…(emphasis on PRESIDENT because he’s the first viable BLACK candidate for that high office!)
Doesn’t the fact, ALONE, that blacks would vote for him ONLY for that reason…regardless of their own personal misgivings or political persuasions about the man…PROVE they are voting for him on RACE alone, i.e., they are “racist”? And if whites can be accused of NOT voting for the man because he is black…and they are “RACIST”, why is not the opposite side of the coin also true???
Actually, I do take your point though. I would add I probably think it’s about the same, percentage-wise, of both blacks and whites that are voting for or against Barack soley because of race, and in both cases…a small minority. Given historical black %’s of democratic voting patterns, that added small minority on the black side looms large like 90%…
But voting FOR or AGAINST the man based on race alone…is “racist”…pure and simple.
“This is a historic moment for them. It took Pres. Bush for them to really get into upper levels of government like everyone else had been for centuries. Do you expect them to yawn? Seriously? I’m surprised it is not 100% for Obama.”
1. Good point on Bush: the LEAST racist president of all time, called a “racist” by the true racists: the media, black leftists, etc.
2. I am a Jewish. There is not a single Jewish politician, including Lieberman and Specter, who I would consider voting for. This ain’t about race, religion, gender or popularity, but who will do the BEST job. Blacks should know that.
And Obama is as white as he is black—probably more white than black when you think of his family. Are we now back to the “one ounce” rule or the 3/5th of a person rule to define “blackness.” Talk about racism.
JFK and LBJ would be proud.
Dr. King would be rolling in his grave. He was a Republican, of course:
http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.aboutnbra&x=819384
According to the well received study “Citizen Klansmen: The Ku Klux Klan in Indiana, 1921-1928″ by Leonard J Moore, Indiana had the largest and most politically significant state organization in the massive national Ku Klux Klan movement of the 1920s. More than 25 percent of native-born men in the state became official members.
To think that there is no legacy even now from this is incredibly naive or willfully ignorant.
“To think that there is no legacy even now from this is incredibly naive or willfully ignorant.”
They were all Democrats, and still most are today.
Look, as a Jew, don’t think I have anything but hatred for the Klan and all they stood for. I’m just saying, as a Hoosier who was raised along the coasts, there is less racism here than in DC, NY, Miami, LA, et al.
The Klan is long gone, but the racism of Democrats continues—black, white, latin, asian, etc.
The least racist folks I know are conservative middle americans—white, black, chrisitian, jewish, etc.
That the media says the opposite is why they cannot be trusted.
Indiana also had 211,000 men fight in the Civil War to free the slaves. 12,000 volunteered in the first week, as Lincoln asked for just 6,000 from each state over a month’s period. That 211,00 was over 75% of the eligible population—BY FAR the highest % of any state in the Union. This state has a proud history.
To make such a claim without evidence is deliberately mendacious.
I just looked at Merida’s picture. What a tiresome character. Chubby and balding, wearing a smirk and “smart” glasses. He looks – and writes – like every other nerd newspaper reporter.
You forgot about us “typical white people” in PA who have “antipathy toward people” who aren’t like us.
And for Bob who is enjoying dragging out ancient history of the 1920′s…the Klan was virulently anti-Catholic as well as anti-Jew and black.
I was told of a story that a great uncle of mine fought the klan. Thousands of Klansman planned to “rally” here in Pittsburgh in a mixed ethnic Catholic immigrant(Irish, Italian, Polish, German…) neighborhood. The men of the town stopped them and below is what ensued. I suggest you read up on your history. The racist card is tattered and worn. Not gonna fly anymore. Try learning some history you ignoramus. Most “working-class” whites in PA are Catholic.
—
KLAN MEMBER MASS ON CARNEGIE HILL; Offer $5,000 Reward for Arrest of Slayer of Member in Riot.
Special to The New York Times.
August 27, 1923, Monday
Page 1, 1841 words
PITTSBURGH, Aug. 26 — State, county and municipal authorities were co-operating tonight in measures to prevent a renewal of the rioting which at midnight last night resulted in the death of one Klansman and the injury of many, both Klansmen and their foes, when a Klan parade attempted to enter Carnegie, a suburb.
Hillary or McCain in 08
“I just looked at Merida’s picture. What a tiresome character.”
That’s why I linked the photo. It helps to have a physical face to go with his irresponsible journalism. Thanks for reading and noticing.
Another article from the 1920′s:
KLANSMAN IS SLAIN, MANY ARE INJURED, IN RIOT AT CARNEGIE; White-Robed Paraders Fired On When They Break Through a Pennsylvania Crowd. o PARADE WAS FORBIDDEN Halted at a Bridge, but the Klansmen Rushed the Crowd and Shooting Began. PROCESSION A MILE LONG All Available Police Rushed From Pittsburgh — Many Klansmen in Hospital, More Spirited Away. KLANSMAN IS SLAIN IN RIOT AT CARNEGIE
Special to The New York Times.
August 26, 1923, Sunday
Page 1, 1241 words
PITTSBURGH, Sunday, Aug. 26 2 A. M. — In a riot between 15,000 Klansmen and several thousand civilians in Carnegie last night and early today an unidentified Klansman was killed. Steve Zanzolbeck, a former regular army soldier, was probably fatally wounded, and numerous Klansmen and civilians were injured.
Regardless of a person’s race, an ill qualified and naive individual is an ill qualified and naive individual. Even if I were a raging racist there is a mountain of reasons not to vote for Obama before even getting to the fact that he’s a black guy.
“Even if I were a raging racist there is a mountain of reasons not to vote for Obama…”
True, and moreso than any other candidate in my lifetime for ANY office, much less President:
-inexperience
-connections w/ roghe folks
-racist wife
-naivete
-FAR left politics
-divisive beliefs (partial birth abortions)
-empty message
And about 150 more…look, aside from blacks, we know his base:
left wing profs, white guilt rich libs, collegians, etc. basically people who don’t know a thing about politics or care a thing about America.
This tactic of calling everyone who does not worship the Obamamessiah a racist is is going to backfire on him big time. Not only is it going to backfire on Obama but at the rate they are going they are going to set race relations back a generation.
You see, people do not appreciate being called racists when they are judging the man on his words, actions and deeds. It is not a winning strategy and right now Obama and his supporters are doing everything they can to push away anyone who isn’t an America hating moonbat, a Moslem or black race warrior.
Unfortunately for Obama the damage he and his supporters have caused already will guarantee he will not get elected, and we haven’t even gotten to the nasty stuff they will pull in their desperation. He has no one to blame for it but himself and his ego.
“Unfortunately for Obama the damage he and his supporters have caused already will guarantee he will not get elected…”
Yep, and I think that in the end, he will lose BIG. After all, what’s the worst they can say about the “maverick” McCain? That he is old, has a temper, or that he wants to win the war on terror?
I cannot wait to see the tears of Oprah, Mikey Moore, Springsteen, Ben and Jerry and all the other fools who love him…often for NO OTHER REASON than his skin tone.
As a current college student in the state of Indiana I am surrounded on all sides by Obama “fans”. What’s not surprising is that none seem to know much about his politics. If they did, considering that most of them are not radical liberals, they might not support him. But Obama, with his fully staffed headquarters and constant media attention locally, has very easily brought them to his base. It’s amazing how lightly these people are taking this very important matter.
Insightful – thanks for your thoughtful article.
Americans have more or less chosen Obama to be their candidate while lying down, what makes you think we’ll stand for anything these days?
If you’ve spent any time at all living in other countries, you would know that the U.S. is just about the LEAST racist country in the world.
The Japanese hate the Koreans, the Koreans return the favor and resent the Chinese. The Chinese consider themselves the rightful masters of Asia. The Thais, Vietnamese and Indonesians resent the Chinese. The Filipinos love/hate Americans.
Arabs hate the Jews, Europeans hate the Jews. Different Lebanese factions look down on each other. North Africans hate black Africans. Black Africa hates/fears Arabs, Indians and Whites.
Don’t even get me started on Brahman Hindus, possibly the most arrogant people in the world, surpassing even Germans.
“If you’ve spent any time at all living in other countries, you would know that the U.S. is just about the LEAST racist country in the world.”
This IS the bottom line. Those disagreeing with this statement are delusional…or liberals…aka liars. FACTS do NOT matter to them. America is, somehow, always evil, to blame, or in this case, racist.
This is one of those silly questions where the two sides take opposite, absolutist opinions that are frankly silly. Some of Obama’s supporters are undoubtedly voting for him because he’s black, some are undoubtedly voting for Hilary because they don’t like Obama because he’s black. On the other hand, there are probably a few people voting against Hilary because she’s female. The trick here is this: when the primary is in New York or some place metropolitan, if you look hard enough you can find someone who votes on racist or sexist grounds, but they’ll be rare. In West Virginia, there will be more of those people, and it doesn’t really matter if people are offended when this is pointed out: it’s still true. NPR had a bunch of people they questioned the day of the primary, and they said they hadn’t brought up the issue of race when they asked people how they voted and why. Several of those questioned brought up the issue themselves, and said they didn’t want a black president. But if you’d like to prove the media is being mean to white voters in rural parts of the country, you can say that they’re twisting what people are saying. For once, I’m afraid I’m on the side of the media.
I love the reverse reverse racism. Some of you are going out of your way to say that certain races are more racist than others. None of this is an inherent quality of a race. Secondly, parties have changed over time. To point to a few Dixiecrats, which are called so because their politics are more like the old Democratic Party, and more inline with the modern Republican Party.
“To point to a few Dixiecrats, which are called so because their politics are more like the old Democratic Party, and more inline with the modern Republican Party.”
Wrong and naive. That’s what the media and academia says. As I noted earlier to you Grant:
LBJ cherrypicked on all of Eisenhower’s earlier Civil Rts. Legislation. After all, LBJ opposed anti-lynching legislation over and over, as well as civil rights legislation and integration ideas. He, like all the southern Dems before him going back 150 years, was a bigot.
The Dems controlled the media, presidency, and academia in the 60s, so spin and revisionism was easy to accomplish. JFK was no fan of blacks either. His father was a bigot and an anti-semite.
It is possible that some of the old-fashioned white GOPers in today’s South came from Democrat families, but Bob Byrd—the only former Klansmen in the Senate—is a proud Dem, Al Gore Sr. was a big time racist Southern Dem, and Strom Thurmond was originally a Dem/DixieCrat. He only later switched because he was angry with the party since they would not let him continue to filibuster the 1964 Voting Act because LBJ was now president as the Dems wanted to pass the Act under him with no more delays so they could get the good publicity.
That Barry Goldwater, while running for president in 1964, voted agst the CR Act, was a mistake. But he only voted against it because he preferred the original one—–the better one, written by Eisenhower nearly a decade prior.
So, instead of lynching, enslaving and segregating blacks, Democrats now destroy them thru social welfare programs and inner-city “activist” leaders/politicians. It’s still racism.
Ignorance of history (and revisionism) is a proud tradition of today’s Democrat Party.
Please read this over and over. You seem like a reasonable guy.
Great article!! I voted for Clinton because she clearly has a deeper understanding of middle east politics, economics, health care issues and seems to connect better with the average american. It never occurred to me to not vote for Obama because of his skin color, but rather, his lack of experience and understanding of the issues on a deeper level. I have always wondered why Colin Powell never ran for president because, I too would vote for him. He is an extremely intelligent man. Obama is so clearly not ready to be president and yet the democrats are stuck with him as their candidate.
Americans, it’s time for honesty. It’s time to dig deep to get past the multiple layers of middle class tolerance and years of anti-discrimination training to get your own real self – that resentful, insecure, jealous fearful anglo-saxon child quivering inside you, to that festering, frothing, evil little inner Klansman hidden deep within each and every one of you. Look at it. Confess it. Hate it. Kill it.
Once you are free from this inner American demon, come and join the change, the hope for America and the world. You too, like the amazing Michelle, can once again be proud of your nation once you vote for Obama.
In the next session we will work on your inner Donald Trump.
“Once you are free from this inner American demon, come and join the change, the hope for America and the world. You too, like the amazing Michelle, can once again be proud of your nation once you vote for Obama.”
Sick.
This is the “depth” or lack thereof, of Obama’s cult supporters: who cares about his politics or really, anything? Just hope the terrorists go away and “change” America from being the best, fairest nation on earth to an appeasing, socialist, hedonistic paradise.
Grow up, man. Read. Think. Put down the bong. Go back to bed.
The question should not be “is America ready to for a black President” but “do Americans want another double talking shyster lawyer in The White House?
Just an opinion from across the pond.
The flaw with this strategy — trying to guilt people into voting for Obama — is that when you step into that voting booth, you’re in there alone. Your vote is between you and God, and God isn’t talking.
The more the press pushes this strategy, the more people will refuse to vote for Obama because they categorically reject the idea that we should vote for a candidate because of his skin color. That is, after all, what is usually referred to as “racism”.
I live in California, which supposed to be a blue state that eats progressive fruit loops for breakfast.
I can tell you just how racist this place you can be. The black vs. brown tension is largely ignored by Barrack “let’s talk about race” Obama. A school shut down just a few weeks and about 100 students were arrested after a MASSIVE fight between mostly blacks and Latinos. One black kid was heard to say “They started it, I had to help our kind” An illegal latino gangster shot down a black football player as soone as he was released on parole.
When you have as many as minorities intermingling as we have in California, there will be tensions between them. You don’t need KKK from yonder southern states to incite racism. But for the democratic party, racism still consists of a typical white, closet clan member longing for the days where blacks were hung from trees and separated because “your skin color is different from mine”
Certainly, the constitution doesn’t protect a white person from voting a candidate solely based on race, because that’s racist. If you don’t make informed decisions, you can’t vote at all, and you can go to jail.
What’s that? That’s not how things are in American? Bigoted individuals are allowed to vote? Well, ok. If you say so.
Just a few comments because I know the author: well written article (and he knows I’d tell him it stunk if I thought so), but it may change 1/10th of 1 percent of the ideology of the population, if that much. But its good to have what used to be the ‘silent majority’ talking back and bringing up opposing views from the newspaper journalist.
RE: “It is my personal opinion that everyone is “racist” and those who cry the loudest that they are not, are usually worse than those who simply ignore it.” I couldn’t have said it better, Blossom.
I know and care very little about politics. The next President as previous Presidents will not be elected (or not elected) by racists or even individual voters. The election will be won by monies given to candidates by big corporations and stealth lobby groups providing millions of dollars to the candidate that can help their cause the most. And it will be won by the spin-doctors – professional candidate advisors (e.g. James Carvel (sp?)).
Bush didn’t even receive the majority of the votes, but because of the antiquated electoral college and some shennanigans (dangling ‘participles’ (?))in Florida (wasn’t Fla’s governor also named Bush?), G W became President.
Great piece, and good backup info. Deep down, the BHO campaign wants to paint the “woe-be-us” picture as his constituents will respond to that – it’s EASY for them. We need people to understand that living in a welfare state, de-emphasizing personal responsibility, does ZERO good for the citizens of this country. The challenge of “rising up” and making something of yourself, in spite of long odds, is part of the bedrock of this country – one of those things that is HARD to do, but is the most rewarding thing for that someone if successful.
Dave:
John-”90% is not surprising, and it is not “racist” either.”
No??? You said yourself in the previous post that the reason they vote for him now is because he is the first “viable” Democrat candidate for PRESIDENT…(emphasis on PRESIDENT because he’s the first viable BLACK candidate for that high office!)
Doesn’t the fact, ALONE, that blacks would vote for him ONLY for that reason…regardless of their own personal misgivings or political persuasions about the man…PROVE they are voting for him on RACE alone, i.e., they are “racist”? And if whites can be accused of NOT voting for the man because he is black…and they are “RACIST”, why is not the opposite side of the coin also true???
Actually, I do take your point though. I would add I probably think it’s about the same, percentage-wise, of both blacks and whites that are voting for or against Barack soley because of race, and in both cases…a small minority. Given historical black %’s of democratic voting patterns, that added small minority on the black side looms large like 90%…
But voting FOR or AGAINST the man based on race alone…is “racist”…pure and simple.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1. I think blacks have proven over and over again that they would vote 90% for a white candidate too. Al Gore is one (as is any RAFT of previous white candidates including Bill Clinton.)
Heck, they did not even vote in droves for Obama until he began winning more than one white state (and until Bill’s big mouth and cynical politics drove them away).
2. Blacks aren’t ONLY voting 90% for Barack because he is black. He is also a Democrat (that helps, you know…).
You can be sure if the Republican nominee were black, he would not be getting 90% of the black vote.
Where do you get the idea that “they” have a SINGLE reason for voting for Obama?
And how can you discount Hillary and Bill’s actions (in terms of turning them off)?
This is not surprising. We’re talking about the Presidency here. I have no clue why people expected otherwise. The psychological boost alone…
3. One in 5 (by one poll) Hillary voters would admittedly choose McCain over Obama. Putting aside the fact that McCain IS Hillary to some people (I do not think so, although he has his issues), how do you explain that?
Do you think one in 5 blacks would SWITCH PARTIES (how do you bold text here?) if the Republican nominee were black?
For sure, blacks should not be voting Democrat, but gee whiz, this one is just too easy (and may never happen again in history as far as many of them are concerned).
And Obama is as white as he is black—probably more white than black when you think of his family. Are we now back to the “one ounce” rule or the 3/5th of a person rule to define “blackness.” Talk about racism.
=========================
I agree with your post.
It’s not the best of reasons, but Jews have been able to reach the highest levels of governmental power (and contribute significantly) and been there for quite some time historically.
I think though, that we all know blacks did not invent the “one drop rule” that says Obama is black.
I am not quite sure many whites would naturally see much of themselves in him (or other mixed-race people) even though he is half white. I think with time, attitudes will change though.
I think that the case of Blacks 90% vote for Obama is racist is quite weak, as blacks vote about 90% democratic anyway.
Be interesting to see two black candidates in Presidential race one Dem and one Repub.
Well written & insightful.
I think it gets ultimately at the issue of the media stirring up stories where there may not actually be one. The fact that Obama’s campaign says these events are isolated should have also been in the lead of the story. Of course, then there really wouldn’t be much of a “story”…
“The fact that Obama’s campaign says these events are isolated should have also been in the lead of the story.”
Well said, Josh.
“Of course, then there really wouldn’t be much of a “story””
Precisely.
Thanks for commenting.
And thanks to all for sharing their assessments of the piece.
According to comments on the CNN article, any reason a white person has to not vote Obama is just an “excuse” to cover up for their inherent “racial bias”
CNN is chock full of liberal elite bigots.