Please stop with the bogus racism charges. Call Palin's William Ayers comments "ridiculous", "outdated", "meaningless because the Weathermen's crimes were years ago" or whatever else you can think of but I don't see how an honest person can see them as "racist" and falsely claiming them such only reduces the power of claims against actual racism. A while back, Jacob Weisberg wrote a horrible piece in Slate that claimed that if Obama lost, it could only be blamed on racism. Obama deserves to be measured by his accomplishments and content of his character. By claiming the only reason someone might disagree with him is because of racism, belittles Obama and pushes Dr. King's dream further away.

What is the racial mythos? Besides incopetence, it is a fear of a black uprising.

And remember that the Ayers connection is not being stood up by itself. Palin is standing it up next to quotes from Rev. Wright. Essentially this ties the scary terrorist, to the scary angry black preacher.

That IS racist. And it is outdated.

Its not that the only reason someone might disagree with Obama is racism. That's hardly the case being made. But when the McCain campaign actively chooses to hit notes that are clearly designed to resonate with the racist fears of a significant part of the population, it does not belittle Obama to call the McCain campaign on it.

You need to read that Weisberg piece. It was truly insulting.

I did read the weisberg piece, and I agreed with it. If Obama was white, he would be up by 20 points right now, if not 30. McCain is the standard bearer for the party of catastrophes - Iraq, Katrina, climate change, energy strategy, and now the biggest of all, the imploding economy. And to top it off, he picked someone with so little knowledge and understanding of what is going on outside her little world, and how it works, for VP nominee. There is no reason for the race to be as close as it is.

McCain did not win the Republican nomination, all of the other candidates lost because of indefensible positions on two of the biggest issues (Iraq and the economy) and personality deficiencies, he was the one left standing. A better race for president would have pitted Obama against the only candidate with true republican ideals, Hilary Clinton, but Obama beat her in the semi-finals. McCain desperately wants to turn this into a race on character, but if there was enough time to distract voters' attention away from the economy, the truth about his character flaws would lead him to defeat anyway.

Weisberg didn't say the only reason that people are supporting McCain is because Obama is black, but that there are enough voters who don't feel comfortable about him being president to make a difference. You shouldn't be insulted, lots of people have non-race reasons for supporting McCain (not that any of them make sense).

If Obama were white he would be a junior Senator with 2 years under his belt and the most Liberal voting record in the Senate. How exactly would that make him a sure thing?

lubbesuh:

If Obama were white he would be a junior Senator with 2 years under his belt and the most Liberal voting record in the Senate. How exactly would that make him a sure thing?

Kind of like if Hillary's last name wasn't Clinton.

That would have been a good argument, or least a viable one, when Clinton first ran for the Senate in NY. Her record and experience since being elected 7 years ago make the argument more smart aleck than resonating.

Obama gave a stunning speech in 2004. JFK had barely any more experience than Obama when he was almost selected for VP and only a touch more when he ran for POTUS.

"Star Power" candidates run and get elected. Clinton, Carter and GWB are all good examples of this phenomenon (GWB was from a 'weak governorship' and had little beyond that to recommend him).

The reality is that if Obama were not black, McCain would have no shot whatsoever. If Clinton were running, McCain would be 15 points down, solidly across the board. And on election night it would be a Reagan level sweep for the exact same reasons that Reagan won.

So get off your high horse and stop pretending that the McCain campaign is not digging into the racist base of the GOP. They are, And they are not stupid people. they KNOW they are.

Similarly you are not stupid either. YOU know they are. But you are so frightened of Obama that you cannot bring yourself to admit it.

You are right that if Clinton were running it would be a sweep. Sigh.

Which means that racism is part of the issue here. Remember that Clinton didn't have all that much experience when he first ran.

Clinton barely won his first election and would not have if it weren't for Perot splitting the vote. 2 years later the House was successfully returned to Rep. contol inorder to prevent Clinton from putting into action any of his more Liberal plans. The American voter is not interested in having a Liberal overhaul of government.

Perot voters at most were 60:40 Bush/Clinton. which means that even without Perot, Bush would have lost.

2 years later the house went GOP on a "throw the bums out" election. Gingrich assumed it was a repudiation of Clinton's poliicies and promtly almost lost controll of the House in 1996. Nope, there was no "Liberal" effort on the part of Clinton except the "don't ask don't tell" effort.

Facts don't bear out your claims.

Clinton ran as a centrist, not a far left liberal. If he had even close to the kinds of associations that Obama has he would not have won. Perot did syphon off a percentage of Bush's votes, though it is disputable whether Clinton would have won anyway. Despite this, there was never a time in that election when it could ever have been said that a landslide was assured for Clinton. The fact that the House changed hands shortly thereafter was indeed a successful bid by Newt Gingrich to throw a wrench in Clinton's machine.

Clinton ran as what he was - a slightly right of center Dem.

And yes Perot siphoned off votes from Bush. But Perot siphoned off votes from both parties. The research on this is clear the ratio was about 60:40. So if you eliminate Perot - and assuming those voters don't stay home, Clinton still wins 52,8 Mil to 50.9 Mil. Its closer, but still a win for Clinton. For Perot to have taken the win from Bush, the break would have needed to be 70;30 or higher, and the polling does not support that.

The fact that the House changed hands shortly thereafter was indeed a successful bid by Newt Gingrich to throw a wrench in Clinton's machine

you can believe that if you want, but again the historical record contradicts you. Tom Foley the incumbent Speaker went down in flames to Nethercutt and never-before candidate. That's not anything to do with Clinton or Gingrich but instead a Throw The Bums Out.

Gingrich then acted as though it was an anti-Clinton vote, and shut down the government. And lost massively. so badly that within another 2 years he was out on his ear from his own seat while Clinton retained 70% approval ratings.

That's not an anti-Clinton vote. Don't delude yourself.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you or the original poster to answer my question as to what about the article is "liberal biased". I went through paragraph by paragraph and found no liberal bias. So prove me wrong. Do the same and show the liberal bias. Show where the facts are ignored or contradicted

lubbesuh:

That would have been a good argument, or least a viable one, when Clinton first ran for the Senate in NY. Her record and experience since being elected 7 years ago make the argument more smart aleck than resonating.

What record? Please tell me what wonderful things she has done to make NY a better place to live? Please tell me why so many more people have been leaving NY than ever before if she has such a wonderful record and experience?