I am appalled at lack of reading comprehension of many of the responders to this article. The writer isn't making the point that "the only reason one would vote against Obama is racism". The point is that if Obama were white, his election, given all the circumstances around this election cycle, would be a slam dunk.

The people who say that they would not vote for a black candidate are being racist by definition. If five percent of the white population turn out to be racist then Obama will lose. Its as simple as that.

You mean that not every American is a racist?

Just enough to set the country back to the 1920's. That ought to just about do it.

The enraged fraysters on this site can get GGGrandfather Beauregard's Klan regalia out of mothballs and plan another grand march on Washington.

Get out the old panorama camera. Everyone will want a print.

If this were a white man running, he wouldn't have been there in the first place if he had the same credentials as Obama and the same message. He would have been out in the primaries, bested by opponents with more experience and a proven track record. The Obama message of 'change' is not enough to make him a desirable candidate to anyone who lived through the Carter administration or who has read enough history to realize that 'change' and being a 'Washington outsider' isn't always a good thing.

Ok, so let me see if I understand what you are saying. Even though the sub-title of this op-ed is "Racism is the only reason Obama might lose." (Emph added) the author really means something else? Doh! what am I thinking he is speaking in Obamonics where all words are left open to new interpretations and definitions. Like Obama saying he would not vote for the new FISA law if it contained immunity for the tele-coms. "Would not" obviously meant "will" in this context because the new FISA law does contain immunity for the tele-coms and Obama did vote FOR it.