You're missing the point. Calling that quote in the original post racist does not impugn the reasoning of the rest of the nation or of other Clinton supporters. In Kentucky and West Virginia, the attitude in the original quote (that is, open and blunt racism) is prevalent. Considering the peculiarity of the voting in those states, I'm not sure anyone should be extrapolating this attitude into something more widespread.

So in Kentucky and West Virginia, the ratio of racists to others is greater than in other states. It makes no sense to compare this polling data to other polling data that suggests that Obama is not hindered by racism and conclude that the latter data masks attitudes belied by the former data. How people can generalize these attitudes and suggest that they are a major problem for Obama anywhere other than West Virginia and Kentucky is entirely beyond me. That approach flies in the face of all of the information (including actual votes) that has been gathered thus far.

Obama won't win Kentucky and West Virginia. That doesn't mean he won't win "blue-collar Democrats" or "working-class whites," it means he won't win the racist vote. Period.

Posted at May 12, 2008 1:45 PM in response to Obama and racism. READ.

I haven't been here long enough to know... is this sarcasm or did you really not see the all-caps first word of the story title?

Posted at May 8, 2008 5:46 PM in response to NOT good Obama Veep choices

Indeed. I'm beginning to think that even here it's hard to find people who actually think about the things they're reading.

Posted at May 8, 2008 5:39 PM in response to Senate Ethics Committee Clears David Vitter

Kaine, Sebelius, Richardson, maybe Ed Rendell.

Posted at May 7, 2008 8:11 PM in response to VA Gov. Tim Kaine for Veep

I just went back and re-read Friedman's 3-part series on Iraq from January 2003, and I'm sticking with my previous statements. He took a very moderate stance on the war, one which said that getting rid of Saddam would be beneficial for the region, but also that we should proceed only if we have a broad coalition of support from the international community, and that we should do everything in our power to avoid destabilizing the country.

As I said, he may have changed his tune post-invasion and become a blind hawk championing Bush and his war, but I can't find anything in the run-up to the war where he was abandoning all logic and common sense and rooting for war without qualification.

I'm not defending him. I disagree with Friedman about a wide range of economic, political, and foreign policy issues and I think he can be a pompous jackass sometimes. I'm just saying that describing him as, "The one who rooted us to war in Iraq beyond all common sense," flies in the face of recorded history.

Posted at May 7, 2008 3:16 PM in response to Thomas Friedman: "we need a president tough enough to tell the truth"

I'm not denying that he's an idiot or that he's been a big supporter of the war, I'm just saying I don't remember him being a big cheerleader prior to the invasion.

Posted at May 7, 2008 1:18 PM in response to Thomas Friedman: "we need a president tough enough to tell the truth"

I saw Friedman speaking before an audience at some school of foreign policy in Winter '02/'03, and he was very clear that Iraq would be a disaster unless it was handled very carefully, and was very specific about his fears about how Bush & co. would go into Iraq. It may be that his printed columns were more hawkish, or that his position evolved after the invasion, but back then, he was anything but "rooting us to war."

Posted at May 7, 2008 1:05 PM in response to Thomas Friedman: "we need a president tough enough to tell the truth"