Are PUMAs racist?  Colbert I. King seems to think so.  In his WaPo column of today, A Suicidal Choice for Clinton Supporters, King delivers a laundry list of reasons why, in his opinion, it makes no sense for Hillary fans to support McCain.  Since he brooks no rational justification for good Dems to desert Obama, by process of elimination, King apparently sees racism as the explanation.

Here's King's punch line [emphasis added]:

So what's drawing Hillary Clinton's die-hard fans to John McCain? Is the attraction only skin-deep?

In an election pitting McCain against the first major-party African-American presidential candidate in history,

It didn't take long for the Washington Post to weigh in on the wrong side of the Second Amendment issue, did it? The Post's Colbert I. King could not contain the disgust he feels for at least one part of the Constitution more in his response to the Supreme Court's Second Amendment ruling today. He flipped his top and went so far off the deep end that he seemed to imagine that Justice Scalia just gave the nod for citizens to get "machine guns" to indulge their newly affirmed ability to indiscriminately fire their loaded guns "at will" in D.C. In fact in this op ed, King was so unhinged that he seemed to utterly dispense with logic as he penned his newest ode to the wild-eyed phobia that is his inordinate fear of guns (yet, curiously, not of criminals).

King's very first few paragraphs seem to be written without the slightest bit of reflection of how illogical his position on the concept of gun laws is because it looks as though he imagines that criminals might obey a draconian anti-gun law, or any gun law for that matter if only it is enforced. One wonders why Mr. King thinks criminals are called criminals if laws would prevent them from doing anything? Worse, King can't seem to tell the difference between a law abiding citizen using a gun in self-defense and a criminal using it for evil. It seems as if to King criminals and citizens are indistinguishable.