He's not black. HE IS BLACK AND WHITE! And he should have run that way and just maybe he would have gotten my and many other's votes!  He and Michelle and many of their supporters set the standard, not those of us who might be in the other 50% of the voting public.  We were expected to feel guilt right from start of this race.  Let's all call a racist a racist whether it's black or white.  Give me a break!  And, just as an after thought, I would not have hesitated to vote for Condi Rice or Michael  Steele or Colin Powell or any other black candidate if he or she held a close or similar political view to mine.

It's a shame to see the Obama people using the tactic of racism against white voters.

Obama is insulting the intellegence of the American people, ALL of the people.

The racism is coming from Obama and it will cause the progress of the last 45 years to evaporate by making black people feel as though they are still unworthy of distinction and should be kept down. Simply by Obama winning the candidate slot, it has been proven America IS accepting of people of color.

Sorry Obama, it's not your race we will reject, it's you.

TotalKaosDave

As a caller to Dennis  Prager pointed out, the only people that would be considered racists would be those white Democrats that won't vote for Obama because he is black.  Republicans CAN'T be racists since they wouldn't vote for him anyway.  Hmmm, the liberal media calling fellow liberals racists...amazing.

Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles.

AP can correct itself if they come out with a follow-up article, for counter-balance, leading with this:

Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost John McCain the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found that an outrageous majority (92%) of blacks say they will vote for Obama in November...

I mean, again, the pink elephant in the room: 92% of African Americans polled (I believe is the %) are voting for Obama. I find this statistic rather shocking. Sure, a majority, but over 90% ??

NOW PLAYING:
Governor Palin Get Your Gun

I have a different take on it. I was never a racist, but Obama is turning me into one.

I hate the way he gets away with his continual lying.  The media lets him slide on false ads and everything.  But, they attack McCain for speaking the truth.  Obama is corrupt to the bone. 

Can you imagine if Hillary or McCain had a close friend of 20 years who helped them start their campaign, and this friend bombed American sites and murdered cops, but got away with it because he had a wealthy family who helped him get off on a technicality. And, this friend recently said he only regrets that he didn't do more damage, and still stomps on the American flag.

That's Obama's friend, Bill Ayers. He lives down the street from Obama.  Obama and Michelle socialize with him and his wife (who is also a terrorist bomber).

Of course, there's Rezko the Chicago crook who is in prison now. Can you imagine if he helped Hillary or McCain buy their mansion with money from Auchi, and Irqai criminal billionaire.

What would you think of Hillary's or McCain's judgement if it took them 20 years to figure out that their preacher was an anti-American racist.  And, subjected their children to the hate on a regular basis.

What would you think if Hillary sent thugs and Chicago blacks into the caucuses to steal delegates using theft, threats, force, and every kind of fraud imaginable.  What would you think if Hillary took over the DNC so that the over 2000 complaints filed in Texas alone, with the phone lines jammed, will never be seen again.

Would you approve of Hillary or McCain doing some "community organizing" to illegally register non-existent people, triple register, and commit other various types of election and voter fraud.

What do you think about 90% of a certain race voting for a corrupt, lying, hypocrite just because he's the same race.

Well, it's starting to turn me against the whole race.  I hate to say it, and I hate to feel that way, but Obama is making me feel like a racist.

McCAIN-PALIN 2008 and HILLARY-ANYBODY 2012

What they're really doing is setting up the excuse for when they lose.  Obviously it would have to be racism for The One to lose.  After all, don't the Germans adore him? 

"That might be so, by why did the study only address how the prejudices of whites are impacting the campaign while totally ignoring how racist feelings by blacks are entering the equation?"

I believe the answer to the above question is found later in the piece as are the answers to a number of other questions you raise.

"The pollsters set out to determine why Obama is locked in a close race with McCain even as the political landscape seems to favor Democrats. President Bush's unpopularity, the Iraq war and a national sense of economic hard times cut against GOP candidates, as does that fact that Democratic voters outnumber Republicans."

Clearly the effort hinges upon the supposition that in this dire political/ economic landscape, they believe that democrats should be further ahead, so the effort is to prove WHY they are NOT. The effort was not intended to look at Obama's SUPPORT i.e. the blacks and what their racial views may or may not be since they have no bearing on the question at hand. The issue is not how many support Obama and why, the issue is WHY AREN'T MORE PEOPLE SUPPORTING OBAMA!

"If you were going to break this down by "Whites Only," why not do so for "Blacks Only"? The same could be asked concerning this question that was also broken down by "All Respondents" and "Whites Only," but not "Blacks Only":"

Because there is nothing wrong or RACIST about people who have been discriminated against,  voting for one of their own AFFIRMATIVELY! Racism is a negative value and the result of the "racist vote" must be negative in order for it to matter. If there was a history of blacks refusing to participate in the political process because of the racism they faced and THEN when a black candidate comes on the scene they flock to him, your assertion might have greater weight, though not much. See, there support for the man still isn't a "negative value" unless he's like some kind of "Malcom X" guy, preaching hatred of whites! For all his faults Obama clearly isn't preaching that, although it is reasonable IMO to deduce that he does actually feel that way, given his penchant for SERMONS of that nature! But the problem with your argument is that the WHITES in the polls would NEVER vote for a Black....PERIOD. Blacks have ALWAYS voted for and supported white candidates since that is, generally speaking, is who's been running! So all of the support for white candidates has CROSSED racial lines while the white DEMOCRATS polled, showed no such bi-racial inclination. To suggest that there is something wrong with blacks voting affirmatively in support of one of their own, while they have also shown a willingness to vote for whites, is ludicrous. 

Such a view operates in some cotton candy world where the Norman Rockwell paintings of America were REAL and the Blacks being kicked out of restaurants and beaten and being attacked by dogs, lynchmobs and firehoses wielded by the POLICE were fake! I realize that a lot of conservatives want to pretend we live in a world where the negative aspects of racism no longer apply and where blacks can be just a racist as whites, but that's just a river called De Nile! While blacks can be just as evil. bigoted, prejudiced and satanically inspired to hate their white brethren as the converse, their ability to affect the course of your life is severely compromised by their relatively paltry numbers. In microcosm, the badwill of people who cannot affect your life is of little to no consequence, since that relegates their "racism" to the level of "opinion" which like butt holes, we all have! Since the aforementioned bad will can in no way retard the growth of even an individual, let alone a race, it is of no importance. Were the populations more equal your argument would have greater weight but sadly most cries of "reverse racism" are nothing more than a dodge by people too obstinate, selfish or evil, to see the legacy of this country's history. 

"Once again, there was no "white" counterpart to this question, nor was there a "Blacks Only" response category.

Why?

Was it only important to AP and Yahoo News to identify white racism and how it might impact the elections? Might it have been embarrassing to some to actually identify and report black racism and how it's impacting the campaign? 

Supporting someone with the same color of skin as you after being discriminated AGAINST is a logical reaction to an illogical situation.  Some act as if blacks are supposed to forget everything that happened to them in the past and view each new incident of racism as something wholly separate from any historical underpinning! Good luck with that.  I've often said that real racism, which rises to more than the level of "opinion" has usually come from liberals and those no in the south for instance.  There was a famous southern writer whose name escapes me who said in effect, "Here in the south we hate the black race but love blacks individually, whereas in the north they love the black "race" but hate blacks, individually. I have certainly found that to be true. You might not want to hear this but liberals are not like you. Many conservatives have come to a different understanding of race over the years,  largely because of Jesus Christ. No matter where people started out along the "racial hatred spectrum", if you will, continued association with Christ will eventually have you seeing someone else as your brother in tribulation. While this has taken years to happen it was largely due to people of FAITH, the abolitionists in slave days and the clergy both Christian and Jewish during the civil rights era. Liberals who have long ago rejected Christ have forsworn the benefit of his presence and it's a good bet that there are a LOT of unrepentant racists lurking in their midst.   In fact at one point at least TWO in TEN democrats polled on race,  said it was prohibitive for them.  In an article that can be found here.... http://abcnews.go.co... look for a section called "The Race Factor" which says in part.

"The Race Factor

Racially motivated voting ran somewhat higher than elsewhere: Two in 10 whites said the race of the candidate was a factor in their vote, second only to Mississippi. Just 31 percent of those voters said they'd support Obama against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, fewer than in other primaries where the question's been asked."

You have no idea what evil lurks in the hearts of Dems, only the Shadow know! LOl. How 'bout them Dems?!

"enshrined slavery in its Constitution"

ENSHRINE means to "cherish in one's heart" - I can't find anything in our Constitution or other fundamental laws claiming slavery is "cherished" - except in the Democrat party (Robert KKK Byrd for example, among many MANY others, including Al Gore Sr., father of "global warming working man" Al Jr.)

So many Socialists - they've learned well from old Uncle Joe.

SLAVERY was GLOBAL: we IMPORTED SLAVERY FROM AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST not by conquest but by business, as ALL nations did. ONLY the US, created by Christian Men, undid that evil, and it took a long, long time. 

Lincoln essentially created the Republican party to divorce himself and others from Democrat tyranny - split at that time into North and South (industrial vs agrarian); the Civil War was indeed about uniting North and South: Democrats threatened to secede from the Union rather than give up their slaves;  and the much-maligned "3/5" of Jefferson's time - defining blacks as only 3/5's of a person - was NOT to demean blacks but to PREVENT Democrat slave owners from skewing votes - Democrats attempted to not only claim blacks as property, but then as "individuals" for the sole purspose of forcibly obtaining votes on behalf of their plantation masters - part of the genius, and the history, of the devolution of slavery was to PREVENT slave masters from using slaves as proxy voters in order to swing elections. THAT is why the 3/5 rule was enacted (Thomas Jefferson being the last true "democrat");

The Party is all that matters; the rest of us will fall or be paid off
with a "New Deal" as they align with the "enemies of our enemies" to
ensure a new Utopia as Castro envisions. Break out the prayer mats and get ready to pray to  Yo'Bama.

Will the 3 people that I have a bet with please come forward and say.. gee Clear, you were right? Just kidding. But I will win that bet!

Liberals Hate-Filled Life

Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/  

..if McCain wins for the onslaught of :

"America was so close...." 

"Was it racism and not policy that doomed The Messiah?...." 

"Still more work needed in race relations after this Tuesdays devistating election results..."

 "Can America ever reclaim her soul after she so cruelly rejected the One..."

"Time to aim all of our guns at the McCain administration and try and destroy it anyway we can everyday for the next four years like we did Bush (ooops, maybe we shouldn't have printed that)..."

Obama wants a race war. I can see tensions get worse even if he wins.

The cities better be on Def-Con 1 Election Night when McCain wins.

Drill ANWAR

If you were going to break this down by "Whites Only," why not do so for "Blacks Only"?

Perhaps because that would expose the possibility that whites aren't any more racist than blacks? What's the difference between a voter who votes for a candidate only for being white and a voter who votes for a candidate only for being black?

The difference is, one is racist and the other is politically correct, and therefore irrelevent in such a study.

It's too late to do a real poll on racism, but I have been thinking for months that the perfect "racism" poll would be to poll 50% Republicans and 50% Democrats on whether they would vote for Condoleezza Rice for President. Then break it down by race and also political ideology.

Wouldn't the results be a sparkling display of the idiocy of polls "proving" anything about anything?

I would love to hear these idiot liberals trying to explain the results.

"Uh, 75% of Republicans said they would vote for her because, well, she's not really very black and maybe perhaps she's not a real woman."

And 70% of blacks would not vote for her because, um, well, ow ow ow my brain hurts oh the pain ow ow ow!"

I wonder if those same Left-Holes that scream RACISM will be willing to admit that if the Obamesiah wins, it will also be because he is "black"??   According to all the polls, he has well over 90% of the black vote and a large portion of the white-guilt vote (btw, that's RACISM too!).   But, let's face it, for the very first time, I agree with Geraldine Ferraro:  The only reason any of us have ever heard of Obama is because he is "black".  Regardless of all the uproar over Ferraro's comment, she is absolutely, 100% right on the money this time!

One can get to the survey & its questions & responses through http://surveys.ap.org/

Power Line had a post on the AP story. I wrote mostly about a survey finding in a thread at http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/40090/P15/

 Search for CQ11 on p. 18 of the pdf file. Here 'tis:

Does the fact that if elected, Barack Obama would be the first black president of the United States make you more likely to vote for him, less likely to vote for him, or does it not affect your vote either way? [Emphasis added, because of the importance of the question.]

Unfortunately, the line spacing here acts up, so it's awkward to show all the responses to that question. But the key is that, among all respondents, 9% are "more likely to vote" for Obama and 9% "less likely," with the overwhelming majority, 82%, responding that the fact that he is black--he's actually racially mixed & as much white as black--will "[n]ot affect" their vote "either way."

The finding that the AP writers trumpeted is the one they wanted the poll to discover. But it's a diversion. One does not vote for or against a group when one votes for a presidential candidate or does not. One votes for a person and voters are capable of distinguishing his or her characteristics from that of other members of a group.

From the standpoint of the election, the critical point is the finding that roughly as many people will vote for Obama because of his race as not. That makes sense. Most blacks would vote for any Democrat, but perhaps a miniscule number of black Republicans, themselves relatively few in number, will vote for Obama. That's understandable: the hope of many is that having Obama as President will help America to get past racial divisions.

But one can expect a significant number of white voters choosing Obama to prove that they are above prejudice and bigotry. Except that many may be like the guy who wrote ina a thread that objections to Gov. Palin's candidacy are about her "religious beliefs in taking the Presidency period." Don't hold your breath waiting for the AP to commission and write on the bigotry affecting her candidacy, widespread in academia, the news media, and wherever progressives cluster. Have you read or heard anything in the MSM critical of the bizarre claims against her? I have not.