…and the role of race:
I can easily imagine a white voter who would deny that race made him “much more likely” to support Obama or even that race was “an important factor”, but who was nonetheless delighted that an exceptionally talented black man had presented himself as a candidate for the presidency, who felt it was a good thing for the country, and who would want to support him other things equal. I bet most of the people I know fall into this category (and they’re not all partisan Democrats). None of them would say they voted for Obama because he’s black–a sentiment, of course, that would be insulting to the man. Nonetheless, I think they’d say, it’s great that he is.
Call it reverse racism if you must. (That label is one good reason, by the way, to suspect “underreporting of pro-black sentiment”. People would rather think of themselves as color-blind than prejudiced in either direction.) Whatever: I think that attitude is entirely justified. It’s not being captured in the studies I’ve seen. And if it’s as widespread as I’d guess it to be, it could easily be worth another 2 to 4 percent of the popular vote.
As I’ve often written, the fact that he was (half) black was the only reason I could see to vote for him. But other things weren’t equal, so I didn’t. And won’t.
OK, OK, maybe slightly off topic, but Fox News is breathlessly reporting that “everyone” in intelligence was tagging the Benghazi attack as “Al Qaeda, every way and all around, with nothing to do with any video” whereas the DCI, one General David Petraeus, was adamant in saying the opposite, sticking with “flash mob.”
This is big, big breaking news. Is DCI Petraeus being “thrown under the bus”? Was the Administration correct in that they genuinely and sincerely were going with what was coming out of the CIA, who was peddling the “flash mob movie reviewer” story? Was this “flash mob” story line something that percolated up from the CIA bureaucracy, which has been known to have its own agenda, and DCI Petraeus just gave his good name to this?
If this is on the level, this seems like another one of those “slam dunk” intelligence assessments? If this keeps up, what are we even doing with a CIA, anyway? Or do you think this is White House disinformation ops?
There has been a lot of talk around here of David Petraeus, Republican candidate for President, but I am thinking, is this man going to have a career and a reputation left when this is done? Or this this damage an unjustified slander by “other operators with an agenda”?
There is no such thing as ‘reverse racism.’ You are either talking about racism or you are not. It is what it is. That term itself is racist. I hate it.
Racism and prejudice are natural for a mind that works with abstractions. We all have elements of it in our thinking. Blatant bigotry OTOH is just ignorance from people that don’t care to correct themselves.
The Japanese, good people, are some of the most racist on the planet because their culture doesn’t have them facing up to it. I’m sure they would change and do when they do have to.
No skin color has a monopoly on racism. It is about the content of your character. People thinking they get a pass because of their skin color are just ignorant.
The simple fact of the matter is that if a white candidate with a resume as thin as Obama’s tried to run for the presidency, he’d he laughed off the stage. He won in 2008 precisely because he’s (half) black.
Ken,
you must be insane to say that NO skin color has a monopoly on racism! White skin is THE only kind that harbors or embodies racism.
Just ask anyone who is about to vote for Obama for the 2nd time.
Yes, the problem is always, always someone else: the Great White Bigot. Witness the way Bill Cosby gets eggs thrown at him when he merely hints otherwise.
To prove it the left engages in false flag operations and think that is somehow legitimate. OTOH, hidden cameras are all biased… which is true. They are biased toward revealing some truth.