If the message board I frequent is any indication, this article is spot on. Liberals have the convenient easy answer to every criticism of Obama and every opposition to his policies. It's simply because you're a racist. And beyond that, they see no need to address your concerns.

In my experience, the claws really came out when I suggested that Obama himself is a racist. He did, after all, attend the services of privileged race-baiter Reverend Jeremiah Wright for twenty years and saw nothing wrong with it. And the cries reached their shrillest when I expressed my disgust at the entitlement displayed by Peggy Joseph, who seems to think that Obama is going to take care of her mortgage and putting gas in her car. How dare I suggest such a thing! This woman was only suggesting that the economy will be so much better under Obama that she'll be able to put gas in her own car and pay her mortgage.

How dare I call Obama a racist? It can only be because I'm racist!

The only possible silver lining I see coming from this is that the liberals will so overplay the racist card, that the accusation of racism will become utterly meaningless.

Possibly then, the dialogue can progress instead of liberals preventing all discussion with their accusations of racism.

"Thus, Melissa Harris-Lacewell, professor of African-American studies at Princeton, was invited on to National Public Radio to expound on the use of "racial code words" in "the current opposition to health care reform." For example, explained professor Harris-Lacewell, "language of personal responsibility is often a code language used against poor and minority communities." "

It really is a sad joke what passes for scholarly inquiry nowadays. To think of how much tuition fees and years of studying are expended on getting degrees in bullshit from the likes of her.

There are plenty of people in academia who really should just go and get themselves a real job cleaning bathrooms or shoveling snow or something.

Obviously, it is also racist to expect men like this to be treated. This is the bare face of national health care.

I was watching a guy "Tavis Smiley"(?) -- he kept insisting that most of white America was racist for objecting to the BO's plans. He didn't get that the flyover country is upset about the 8-16% of GDP being controlled by Washington.

I personally think this whole racism thing is a preemptive strike by liberal America so that when his term is over and either he doesn't get reelected and/or his term is so obviously an abject and utter failure by nearly anyone's standard, they have an excuse all ready: "See? It's because the country wanted him to fail because they're racist! He never had a fair shot b/c he's black!" And they can continue to moan and wring their hands over the racism in America and how no, even a black president couldn't change that, sniff...

Give the country a solid conservative choice for president, who happens to be black, and see how we vote then.

I'd vote for a pink donkey named Mathilda if she were truly for small government and had a rational person's rudimentary understanding of economics.

See, I told you so.

I and many others sounded the alarm that if you put a radical black Alinskyite in the oval office, all criticism of his policies would be dismissed as racism.

I said that I didn't want to spend four years not being able to criticize the president without being called a racist.

And I was right.

Thanks so much, 52%.

I never liked W either. So that makes me prejudiced against his race - privileged old white guys.

I was wavering between voting for McCain and Obama. The tipping point away from McCain was Palin. So my Obama vote was actually a "no Palin in the White House" vote.

I don't like Dubya, either. But that's because I'm prejudiced against narcissistic, pampered, wussy, life-long failures who see only the rich as "people," while everyone else is an expendable commodity to be used and exploited for the benefit of "people." If some of the non-rich lose their lives while being used to benefit the rich, so what? They're not real people and they're always making more.

I was wavering between voting for McCain and Obama. The tipping point away from McCain was Palin. So my Obama vote was actually a "no Palin in the White House" vote.

Sexist!

(Identity politics are silly.)

"The tipping point away from McCain was Palin. So my Obama vote was actually a "no Palin in the White House" vote."

But WHY? How's Biden looking to you guys about now? And when has the VP pick ever been THIS relevant?

For the absolute life of me, I don't understand people's flat out animosity for Palin. So many people say this was their reasoning behind voting for an empty suit and a verbally incontinent knuckle dragger...but is just mystifying to me. Mystifying because no one can go any further than this if I dare even ask.

Did anyone read the full text of Palin's speech on her recent visit to China? I have. Here's the recap (paraphrasing): Individual freedom, individual responsibility, government is the problem, not the solution.

I absolutely adore the woman.

And I am noticing, this more now by listening to liberal leaning Bay Area dwellers within earshot. This excuse is getting coughed up a lot now that we are seeing how ridiculously inept and unqualified Obama is.

It stinks of diversion. "Hey, don't blame me for voting for Obama, it was Palin's fault".

I was afraid of Sarah Palin's fundamentalist Christian affiliations. I was worried about her imposing her religion on me, of halting the teaching of sex ed, of imposing prayers at public events and schools, of destroying existing environmental regulations and accelerating global warming (which it turns out Obama is happy to do as well, but at the time he was pretending to be for the environment). It worried me that she belongs to a church that beats up African fortunetellers when they don't convert.

She also seemed very hawkish, and anxious to accelerate the wars, and to start a new one in Iran. At the time, Obama was pretending he didn't want to start one, and I took the chance.

And honestly, I don't think the McCain suit is any fuller than the Obama one. Frankly, he's just as much of a political poser. Between two political posers, I took the one who DIDN'T have a fundamentalist Christian extreme right-winger as a veep.

I was going to vote third party. I kinda wish I had.

And conservatives DON'T want small government. They want the government to tell you who to fuck, who to marry, what not to smoke, forbid birth control, force people to attend services (praying to a captive audience counts as forcing them to attend your services, people), send tons of money to foreign countries, all the while starting wars to make their buddies richer (and the rest of us poorer).

And yeah, the Democrats are doing all of the above, too. They just pretended they weren't going to.

Sarah Palin said in a debate that we should follow Israel's lead. I'm sorry, there is no reason ANY country, no matter how friendly to us they are, should be telling US how to run our foreign policy.

Basically, I don't like either of the parties, but I keep voting Democrat on the off chance they aren't lying. Of course, it always turns out that they are.

... I wasn't going to vote for McCain either way, however. I was hesitating between Green and Libertarian.

Well, looks like the "Black" intelligentsia in the United-States is working hard to find a way to refinance the "Race Card".

Since the end of segregation, The peddlers of racial disharmony kept of preaching that Racism was not only due to racial discrimination but also to the power inequality between ethnicities (a purely socialist idea). Now, having a Black man at the White House affect this paradigm who keeps the African-Americans angry against "The Man" and the race baiters of the world fat.

Here's a fun thing; Dubya was quite a lame president. On the other side, Atheism never reached mainstream before his presidency. All the offending comments he made (like the infamous "Atheists can't be Patriots") kinda spook many of them out of the proverbial closet. Now, let's see it that way; do anyone remembers any "Tea Parties" under Clinton or any other presidents? I think we are witnessing the birth of a long-term fiscal-conservative movement in the States.

As far as Race relations will go, I assume that many more people will be tempted to pull the "BullCrap" card when the next "Black Leader" will present his opinion on any given subject. Now that "The Man" is black, the whole "We are downtrodden due to Racism" spiel will fall flat. No they are digging for the next big racism idea; finding racism "Mirages" in any text written by a racist (I.E. white guy). Can anyone say "account overdrawn"? :D

The thing that really chaps my hide about spurious accusations of racism and sexism is that, well, both racism and sexism still exist. Not the way they did in the '50s, true, but they haven't disappeared. And when you trivialize accusations of racism and sexism -- when you decide to use them as a careless cudgel in order to ram through whatever policy you support -- you make it harder for real victims of such things to be taken seriously. Those victims are typically poorer and far less powerful than the people cheapening the accusations, too.

That having been said, as someone commented to Glenn Reynolds the other day, most of the bitter clingers I know would have been delighted to vote for Condi Rice in some way, shape or form. And I have a sneaking suspicion that all of this "RAAAAACISM!" talk may end up helping the Senate candidacy of Michael Williams in Texas. In the end, this fallback on racism is going to hurt Obama more than it helps, methinks. And I think he agrees with me. Time will tell...

It's a hell of a powerful card if we elect a person of color, or a female, and are then threatened with racism/sexism, if we dare disagree with them.

Because I might be threatened with racism/sexism for disagreeing-I think I will just vote for white males from now on.

NicoleK, I'm not sold on the global warming problem - the people proclaiming it sound a little too, well, religious. Time will tell.

But I agree with everything else you said. My main objection to McCain was the way he hustled off to Washington to vote in favor of the bailouts. I voted third-party, not because I was crazy about Barr, but just because I want to help third parties get their ballot access. Maybe they'll run someone better next time - at least it's something more than a choice between big government and even bigger government.

Palin says a lot of things I like, but her religious fundamentalism is deranged. I was even mad at Glenn Beck, when he was complaining about the school video - "The History of Stuff," I think it was called. He criticized part of the video that says people feel unduly pressured to buy lots of stuff, that they are made to feel that they lack value if they don't.

Well no one can "make" you feel anything. But there IS value in not attaching too much importance to stuff. The current credit crisis is ample evidence of that. Why is it bad to encourage people to live within their means? To buy things at garage sales or thrift stores to avoid paying credit card interest? People *do* seem to spend way beyond their means. Beck said the reason people aren't happy isn't because they buy too much stuff, it's because they've stopped believing in God, and having faith in a higher power. Oh for crying out loud. You don't have to believe in imaginary creatures to be happy. What horseshit.

I *do* think people would be happier if they stopped competing in the consumption race. Who cares what the Joneses are doing? Just live within your means and enjoy your own life. Can't you think of any better benchmark for living a good life than your purchase of Ethan Allen furniture?

The limited-government advocates are going to shoot themselves in the foot, if they ignore this kind of thing and keep banging on about religion.

Palin and religion. Where did she ever incorporate her *personal* belief system (religion) in her policy making or governing of her state?

Her first veto as governor was to block a bill denying health benefits to same sex partners. She specifically made the argument that while her personal beliefs were different that blocking of this was *unconstitutional*.

From what I see, Palin doesn't really give a hoot about how people live their lives, just so long as they can *live* them free of government intervention.

When it came to the topic of legalized drugs (and I am paraphrasing) she even said something like "Well unlike Clinton, I smoked but i can't say I didn't inhale". She is not for legalizing drugs but does believe resources used on the drug war could be better spent elsewhere.

So the "religious" argument for me falls way short.

Now, can we talk about her policies?

"My main objection to McCain was the way he hustled off to Washington to vote in favor of the bailouts."

Ya, that pissed me off too. I voted for a third party because of this...but NOT because of Palin.

"I was worried about her imposing her religion on me, of halting the teaching of sex ed, of imposing prayers at public events and schools, of destroying existing environmental regulations and accelerating global warming"

She has a family full of teachers, and she stated (clearly enough for most people) that she will not remove the teaching of evolution in schools and thinks that creationism should not be taught by schools, but by parents - individually.

Where did she ever (even remotely) advocate forced prayers in schools?

Global warming (I think we've had this discussion before NicholeK) is a religion - so now who exactly is forcing ones religion on someone else through crack-pot legislative ideology?

"She also seemed very hawkish, and anxious to accelerate the wars, and to start a new one in Iran."

Where? When? To whom? What I did hear her say (which is what we should ALL be saying) is that if crazy fuckers on the other side of our pond want to build nukes and say they want to use them on us or our allies they ought to get what is coming to them, in no uncertain terms.

"And conservatives DON'T want small government."

I am a conservative, I want small government. The republican party (once conservative - now not) doesn't advocate for smaller government, no. But that's not a conservative thang!

"Sarah Palin said in a debate that we should follow Israel's lead. I'm sorry, there is no reason ANY country, no matter how friendly to us they are, should be telling US how to run our foreign policy."

Well, after Obama just shit the bed with his UN speech about Global Communities - I am ALL for following Israel's lead. From a geopolitical perspective (a sane one, anyway) it is a really, really good idea to keep Israel safe, on our side, and our friend. And also for reasons too many to list. But one really important one is that the innovation and technology that comes from their citizenry is moving us forward, not backwards - in medicine, defense, computers, cell phones...and more - really good stuff.

I don't care where Palin derives her strength, humility and personal perspectives, not one bit. I only care that she applies it with logic and keeps religion separate from our constitution. Which I can see clearly that she does.

NicoleK, I was going to put quotes from you and respond, but gee I would've been copying the entire message. if you're going to hate Palin, at least own up to the reason instead of falling back on really tired lies. Palin isn't antibirth control. Not in her own life or the public sphere. Republicans and Conservatives do NOT want to ban birth control. We want people to use it more. Lots, lots more. Why worry about her being a "fundamentalist christian" who attended a church you didn't agree with? Every President we've had has been Christian or at least claims to be. And why would her church bother you, but Obama's race-baiting Rev Wright is A-Ok?

I won't go into you needing the environment to be saved, since that's a load of hogwash.

Woman up and say you hate her cause she's hot, or you hate her accent, or think hockey is a stupid sport. You can even hate her because she kills animals. Just pick an honest reason.

I don't hate her at all. I just didn't think she'd make a good VP.

I didn't say she wasn't going to teach creationism... I was more concerned about abstinence-only education. She was promoting abstinence-only education in Alaska. This is a big reason I didn't want her as VP.

Pastors in her church beat up African fortunetellers who didn't convert when told to. I enjoy reading the cards, myself. I think having someone in office who believes beating up fortunetellers who don't convert to fundamentalist christianity in office is detrimental to my sense of self-preservation. It goes a bit beyond "someone I don't agree with". I wouldn't want a hardcore Muslim in office either.

Obama's race-baiting Wright is also a twit. But I don't actually believe that Obama is terribly serious about the faith. Wright didn't specifically go beat up a category of people that includes me. Sarah Palin's pastors did.

The only reason the fundies aren't beating up people here, is because they can't get away with it. However, I firmly believe that Sarah Palin would forcibly convert me if she could get away with it.

You don't believe in global warming, but I do. Thus, Sarah Palin would be supporting policies I don't believe in.

You may want the US to be ruled by another country, I do not. I believe Israel has far too much influence on American politics. Thus Sarah Palin was not a good choice for me.

There are initiatives on the ballot to get inseminated eggs classified as human beings with all the rights thereof. This is not my invention. This would affect the Pill. It is my belief that Sarah Palin would support these initiatives if they came up. She is pro-life, remember.

I don't agree with her policies. In a big way. Just because YOU agree with her policies doesn't mean I must be lying when I say I don't.

"And why would her church bother you, but Obama's race-baiting Rev Wright is A-Ok?"

Hold on. Why would YOU assume that EITHER of these ridiculous, extremist church affiliations would be okay with NicoleK? They both irritate me - I wish we had elected leaders who didn't believe in imaginary creatures at all.

Regarding the birth control, I hear you - what better way to reduce abortions and keep even the anti-choice crowd happy? No one wants an unplanned pregnancy. But there do seem to be a lot of anti-abortion people who are also anti-birth control. There can be no way to explain this anomaly, other than they are religious fruitcakes.

Just a few scant years ago, a Catholic fundienutter I worked with said she was okay with abortion in cases of rape or incest, but not otherwise, because that's killing a person. Well excuse me, you idiot, but how is killing a person who is a result of rape or incest any different than killing anyone else, if that's what it is? She just wanted to punish women for having sex. I guess because she married a dork and had three children with him.

A BIG reason you did not for not vote for Palin was her abstinence only programs in Alaskan schools, which is a state issue? Okay, I really don't know where to go with that one. You got me!

"Pastors in her church beat up African fortunetellers who didn't convert when told to. I enjoy reading the cards"

Can you please provide your source for this? I didn't hear about it, and I've read a lot about her, which is not to say it DIDNT happen, I just think if something like this DID then it would have been a bigger fucking deal since they can find just about anything to try to rip her to shreds.

I'll agree, Obama isn't religious, but I really don't think Trinity Church is a religious church either...it's an ideological political movement which get's tax sheltered as a religious institution. Oh, much better. Their Marxists. Let's move on, shall we?

"The only reason the fundies aren't beating up people here, is because they can't get away with it. However, I firmly believe that Sarah Palin would forcibly convert me if she could get away with it."

NicholeK. I don't dislike you in the least. But this, my friend, is irrational. Fundies beating people up has to do little with their religion and more to do with them - and I don't see how a person like Sarah who has been divorcing her religious beliefs and policy judgements her entire career (UNLIKE OBAMA)is the type of person who I would be threatened by conversion.

"You may want the US to be ruled by another country, I do not. I believe Israel has far too much influence on American politics."

I don't want the US ruled by another country (neither does Palin) we have our own problems now with fighting off our internal enemies who are pushing a welfare state... However, as a DEMOCRACY, Israel certainly is a country I put my full support behind.

If these are the reasons you didn't vote for Palin (and you are certainly entitled to them) then guess what, that is up to you to?

I just don't see the logic - but I appreciate your explanations, it's more than a lot of folks do.

One more:

"You don't believe in global warming, but I do. Thus, Sarah Palin would be supporting policies I don't believe in."

How is this different from what religious fundies try to do? Let's look...

"You don't believe in Christianity, but I do. Thus, xyz would be supporting different policies I don't believe in".

I have a problem with this type of reasoning. I have a problem with it because it is used to vote for people who pass laws that impact MY FREEDOM.

We should support NO policies on anything religious or ideological. Our government should be there to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic or if the shit REALLY hits the fan. Just like our Constitution says.

I don't care what color you are. I'd vote for the blue guy if he had sensible policies.

But I am so tired of government is the answer. Unfortunately we hve become a nation that once you get elected, you are there for life. We need term limits that you only have so much time in congress before you have to take a break.

Dislike is such a gentle word... Tonight, 26 Sept, the teleprompted one got some air time. He stated, for the umpteenth time, that all this medical mayhem, that he vowed will pass, will do is offer affordable choices. There are currently more than 1200 insurance providers in America, and the *feral* government prevents, by law, that those companies operate across state lines to bring more beneficiaries into the pool and offer better value because of greater financial resources. The reality is that the government will put the private companies out of business by mandating that they cannot decline anyone for any reason, and that there is no limit on coverage for anyone...ever. Where is it written in the laws of common sense that the fountain of finance is fathomless? My home and auto insurance have limits based on the premiums I choose to pay that buy me X-amount of coverage. Where does the logic exist that says medical insurance somehow gets a radical limitless coverage??? What are these people, and I use the term loosely, in Washington smoking that says they can make such preposterous statements? Who, in their right mind, can believe such absolutely disgusting lies?

The teleprompted one says you can choose either your own plan or the government one, but the simple reality is that the private plan you now have will be bankrupted, and your choice will only be the government within a few short years. Think of it in these possible other terms...this bizarre administration will never tell us that they are going to ban petroleum as a transportation fuel, they won't ban autos, or take them from you with legislation that "outlaws" them. What will probably happen, as it will if this medical takeover passes, is that you and I will not be able to afford the fuel to put in the tank (or pay the private medical premiums).

You'll have your car...you'll have your private healthcare provider...you just won't be able to afford it. You lose, and this bizarre administration wins to take away a huge freedom from you of choice. Your freedom to choose how, when, what you do for yourself will become illegal.

If you need proof that what this bunch of bananas in Washington is not acting within any confines of the United States Constitution, just give one example of anything that they operate for the public good that is solvent and funded 100%. It is a direct conflict of interest that the U.S. gov't compete with free enterprise, and the RICO act should apply to the federal gov't as well as any other entity.

Lastly, there are laws that say I have to purchase auto insurance to drive and protect both myself and anyone else I might encounter. The law does NOT tell me that I have to purchase this from the gov't as a competing entity, AND my premiums are not going into a pool to afford coverage to a motorist that is too poor to afford the premiums, but not too poor to buy an auto...this would be the most absurd concept imaginable. The same concept applies in medical insurance, but the bunch in Washington is convincing you that everybody in America who doesn't have medical insurance gets covered whether they pay or not into the system, but there is no standard by which to measure their "right" to have it: drug testing, health maintenance, what they chose to spend their money on instead of medical insurance like cigarettes, cell phone, alcohol, and other expensive "wants".

As good an example as any I can think of how the left insulates this president from all criticism with the race card.

One of the left's nicknames for Bush was "the Chimp," for his resemblance to a common chimpanzee and his subhuman intelligence.

Anyone remember how the left screamed "RACISM!" when Rush laughed at a caller's statement of Obama's resemblance to Curious George?

Even Rushbo himself sensed the danger he was in. First he laughs at the caller's comparison, then later claims he's never heard of Curious George. A fan compares Obama to a character he's never heard of, but he laughs anyway? Uh-huh. Disingenuous fraud.

The presumption of racism, is itself racist, indeed the very concept of race, is itself racist. The only race is the human race. Skin color is as relevant as eye or hair color in talking about policy & law. The fact that the left screams that one accusation so loud so often, is proof positive that they have no other argument with which to debate their "ideas". Not facts, not evidence or poof, just how it makes them feel.

Were you drinking or smoking something, Nicole, when you posted your rant against Palin? You were absolutely sure that she was going to control every aspect of your life and then proceeded to vote for a guy who IS ACTUALLY taking great steps to control every aspect of your life.

If anyone ever asks you for sage advice on professional or personal issues please disclose to them how utterly foolish you've been on politics before opening your mouth any further.