Umm, yeah, E.J. That's call a racist.
But, I do agree with E.J. on this, "Like it or not, Obama's race is an issue, just as John F. Kennedy's religion was an issue in 1960 -- and racism runs deeper in our history than anti-Catholicism." And this, "Is this unfair? Yes, it is. But if our nation is to cast off the shackles of race this year, Obama will have to grapple more than he'd like with the burdens that our history and the past travails of liberalism have forced him to bear."
And I have to say that while I agree with Eugene Robinson's opinion, linked here and above, on the whole, the crimes against humanity committed against African Americans continued into the 1970s and today. Black folk aren't so much concerned about "racial sins" committed long ago so much as the "racial sins" committed nowadays. Like Texas State Republicans selling a button asking, "If Obama is president, will we still call it the White House?"
But other than that, I agree with Eugene's assertion that, "I'm confident that Sen. Lindsey Graham and the rest of John McCain's front-line surrogates know full well what messages they're sending about Barack Obama and race. On the off chance that they -- or, more likely, some of the white voters they're trying to reach -- don't know text from subtext from context, here's a deconstruction."
And there's one last thing I wanna touch on.
That's Andres Martinez's take on why Barack Obama is farther ahead of John McCain. I'm kinda tired now, so let me just tease the point . . . Martinez is wrong.
It would be unfair, however, for Obama's campaign to cry "racism" every
time Republicans try to define the Democrat in unflattering terms. It would also
be a mistake, likely to backfire with voters who won't take kindly to a relative
newcomer trying to exempt himself from the ordinary, if unfortunate,
rough-and-tumble of a presidential campaign.