Hi, Inkberrow. I'm more inclined to take the staffers at their word than chalk it up to some conspiratorial effort to play the race card. The individuals quoted were usually all identified by name. The incidents -- how and when they occured -- would not be ones where I would expect documented evidence to be gathered (i.e. I wouldn't expect the volunteers being insulted by drivers to write down license plates). These people weren't demanding justice; they were just conveying what happened to them. Indeed, many seemed to have formerly held the view that "racism no longer exists in America," given their surprise at what happened. Agree generally, but I'd say that such events would likely have been reported and reported on nationally, individually, immediately and noisily---like the Constantine noose imbroglio---instead of appearing en masse from behind the campaign looking-glass after a WaPo reporter has a particular story in mind.
I agree the quote by the Mayor was NOT racist, although I found it distressingly stupid for a public figure and leader. The fact one's father was a radical Muslim and from Africa does NOT imply that this must have "rubbed off" sufficiently to make a person Muslim and anti-American. It would be stupid to assume that degree of "rubbing off", though it's not clear the Mayor does; but equally stupid to piously assume for public consumption that the connection is immaterial for fear of giving offense. Often the truth lies in the middle somewhere, but most of us adopt different working assumptions or rebuttable presumptions depending on circumstances and priorities as we define them. The more information the better, but if you find out an acquaintance's father was a serial child molester, will you let that acquaintance look after your kid for you?
I would agree that anybody voting for Obama only because he is black is no better than those voting against him on the same single criteria. Of course, if African-Americans vote for Obama in the general election in the same proportions, then that will mean about 80% to 90% of them backed the Democratic candidate and how is that different from virtually every other Presidential election since the New Deal? If Clinton was somehow to prevail, some blacks might feel sufficiently disgruntled to sit out the process but I doubt 25% or more would cross lines and vote for McCain. No argument here---the national dialogue just needs to move beyond the point where citing the same statistics and trends are alternately racist or non-racist depending on the identity-politics standing of the commentator.
Thanks for replying with some interesting counterpoints.
