Ya'll really should study politics in the South before too long. The Democrats have already had (Via those liberal "Free Press" papers and more mainstream media) all Republicans tarred as Foaming-at-the-Mouth Racists. It's pointless to argue with them, they won't listen. If you try to argue, you get ignored or insulted.

This is the future of America.

Don Black is a former Ku Klux Klan leader,

Former leader,,,,, are they implying that his past matters? How come his past matters, but not Obama's freinds past? Huh, what's that, I cant hear you. Tell you what, they are both worthless, how about we just go with that?

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

Mr. Shepherd I too read the story in USA Today. I read it in Tues print edition. Of course, as my subject line suggests, I find great humor in the Blacks being white supremacists. :-} 

As to the particular piece, is it any wonder that USA Today has a liberal bias. I will simply show their lead editorial in the opinion section in the same day's paper;

Given the long, ugly
history of race relations in America, one of the most remarkable things
about the 2008 presidential campaign is how small a role, at least on
the surface, race has played.

Barack Obama,
the first African-American nominee of a major party, has rarely called
attention to that fact, focusing instead on winning over white voters
and a non-threatening message.

John McCain, to his credit, has avoided playing the race card, to
the point that he has resisted demands from supporters to attack Obama
over his connection to Obama's fiery former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah
Wright.

So is race a non-issue? Hardly. Two weeks before Election Day, political analysts are debating whether Obama's lead in the polls
is overstated because many white voters won't tell pollsters what
they're really planning to do in the privacy of the voting booth.

The phenomenon is called the "Bradley effect,"
named after Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, who lost his 1982 bid to
become California's first African-American governor to a white
challenger despite polls showing him ahead by at least 9 points just
before the election. Whether Bradley lost because of closet racism or bad polling is still a matter of dispute. And whether Obama will experience a similar effect won't be known until Nov. 4.

At this point in the campaign, however, two conclusions are clear.
America has come a long way. And racism remains real and abundant
within American society.

Just how far the nation has come is evident in the mere fact of
Obama's candidacy. He was born at a time (1961) when black men faced
huge obstacles trying to register or vote in large swaths of the USA.
Fifty years ago, 53% of voters told pollsters they wouldn't vote for a
well-qualified black candidate; today, that has dropped to 5%. Two
groundbreaking secretaries of State, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, have acclimated voters to seeing African Americans at the highest echelon of U.S. government.

At the same time, reporters traveling around the country have had
little trouble finding bigoted Americans who say they won't vote for
Obama because he's black or biracial (his mother was white, his father
black). Crude racial stereotypes remain common.

So how will the racism show itself at the polls?

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., told Pittsburgh's Tribune-Review
last week, "Obama's got a problem with the race issue in Western
Pennsylvania" that could cost him 4 percentage points on Election Day.
On the other hand, some analysts have discussed a "reverse Bradley
effect," in which some whites vote for Obama while telling bigoted
friends they didn't. Blacks, meanwhile, are expected to turn out in big
numbers for Obama, potentially offsetting race-based white votes.

Clearly, America is getting nearer to the post-racial society that
Obama would like to usher in, but the journey is not yet complete. It's
inconceivable that race won't be a factor on Nov. 4, but there's plenty
of reason to believe it won't be the decisive one.(e.m.)

Does anyone else smell some racial guilt complex syndrome cookin here? With a side of "only whitey's a racist, but nobody else"? 

I only highlighted one section of this piece, hell, I very well could have highlighted the entire thing. This is their position on race. Simply put, this is the angle they want covered on racism in America. Therefore, is it really any surprise that the story about the Blacks was put out the way it was? 

If the young Black was a DEMOCRATIC member of the DNC committee would USA Today have found it useful to their story? Somehow, I think not. 

If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.

Don Marquis 1878-1937