Having said that, my brother, his wife and her family (and friends) are all anti-Obama. All the anti-Obama chain e-mails bring up Obama's race. In fact my sister-in-law (who is college educated and was a librarian at a public school, but is now a stay at home mom) is absolutely convinced that Obama has fooled white people into voting for him. She's convinced that once Obama becomes president he will push through his true pro-black agenda. Needless to say she also believes that Obama absolutely hates white people. She's not KKK and if you asked her if she was racist she would deny it. And she says that it is Obama who pushes a black agenda.

I'm beginning to wonder if my sister-in-law's idea of a racist is someone who lynches blacks. Because she doesn't believe in lynching, then she's not racist. I don't talk to my brother too much about it and he's not as vocal as his wife. But I'm still surprised at him because that's not how we were raised.

My Mom, to throw some perspective in here, is now an Obama supporter (after supporting McCain). The reason she turned away from McCain is that after researching his positions she says that McCain scares her.

So yes, the GOP has lots of “old white men”, if not literally, then in substance. And many folks will claim to vote for McCain for reasons other than race even though race plays a huge part of their decision (like my brother and sister-in-law and their friends).

I've made a comment before that Obama needs to name some of his cabinet positions (not all) to comfort undecided moderates that he won't fill his administration with people like Wright. Obama will choose people like Biden and Hagel (if not literally, then at least similar people) to fill his cabinet. Of course I think there will also be some surprises in Obama's cabinet and so it will be interesting to how this administration fairs. That's the best way to defuse the race issue. The US has never had a black president before and a lot of people who may be willing to vote for Obama but not ready to commit may need the reassurance that he won't make the government a black government.

It's a false argument, because it's not either /or , It's both.

Stating that racism (or sexism) is still a problem does not amount to harping on it,. Jazz.
It is what it is. It's not stating the case that causes a problem. It's BOTH overstating or understating that makes trouble.

Manchester paints a picture of how things should be: one human race , choosing according to issues. But hat has never been the case for significant portions of the population, and it's not the case now.Will pretending make it so?

As a matter of fact, reading about race relations during the post civil war period leads me to believe that every inch gained is often followed by a yard lost. It's always been a very twisted road.
For example, lynchings became concentrated on lynching blacks, only after they had achieved significant progress economically, in education and politically.
In that light, Obama's very success may yet turn out to be a provocation..

Let's just see where this goes.
Caution, yes, indeed/ Speech prohibition, no.

Two in 10 white West Virginia voters said that race was an important factor in their vote, and more than 8 in 10 of them backed Mrs. Clinton, according to surveys of voters leaving the polls.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/us/politics/1…

Nuff said.

Stating that the election will be decided based on religiosity is absurd.

While I am sure you are an exception, the fact many Americans go to church a lot does not make them profoundly religious. Profoundly religious people do not embrace doing to our enemies what Christ's enemies did to him, let alone locking up people and throwing away the key for so-called victimless crimes.

Sucking up to crackpots like Pat Robertson and the right wingnuts at Bob Jones University might help McCain firm up what is left of his base, but should be and will be viewed by mainstream Christians and Jews with great concern.

Finally, in a test of spiritual bona fides, Obama laps McCain and then some.

Do not put words in my mouth by asserting that I am arguing that a vote against Obama is a vote for racism. That will be true of some voters, but by no means the majority who go for McCain or Barr or whomever.

I did not write those words without a great deal of forethought. I know you are not suggesting that we bloggers self censor when it comes to racial perceptions and outright racism, or are you? Is there a satisfactory middle ground? If there is, please elaborate.

Obama's race will be a HUGE if regretable aspect of the campaign and may influence the outcome. We know that from a close reading of primary results. Obama knows that and much of his early general election advertising will be biographical-type ads to try to better acquaint voters with who he is.

Recall also that I have written that I think we are one or two election cycles away from race, gender and sexual preference not really being players, but we have not yet reached that point.

I'll buy you a beer when we do.

“Many voters will prefer a virtual Bush third term to seeing a black man in the White House.“

Statements like this dismay me a bit. In the interest of having open, productive discussions with voters, such things seem to hurt the debate more than help. We should be on the lookout for true racism where ever it raises its ugly head, but there are other reasons people vote for more conservative candidates. When you open up the discussion by effectively saying, “If you don't vote for Obama you're a racist!” the other person has likely already tuned you out and closed their ears.

I'm not saying racism doesn't exist, but attitudes like that are, I think, unproductive for raising the level of debate.