Now that whiter-than-Wonder-bread Iowa has punched Barack Obama a first-class ticket to New Hampshire, can the mainstream media, particularly the New York Times, shut up about whether America is ready for a black president? That's what Michelle Malkin rhetorically asked on her blog before giving readers the answer.
Sure they will. Instead, they'll whine about how white Iowa is hardly reflective of the nation as a large. Gotta give Hillary a fightin' chance, I guess:
Well, it looks like the answer is no. No, the MSM won’t stop yammering about un-diverse white voters. Here’s the NYTimes editorial this morning, right on cue as I predicted, clamoring for an end to the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary by zeroing in on its lack of, you guessed it, racial diversity:
We don’t question the enthusiasm or the commitment of the people of Iowa and New Hampshire. But Iowa, where a huge turnout amounts to less than 10 percent of the population, is about 92 percent white, more rural and older than the rest of the nation. New Hampshire has a non-Hispanic white population of about 95 percent…
Yes, white, rural, elderly voters turned out in droves for black candidate Obama and rejected white, union-backed hacks Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.
This must be stopped!
The Times editorial concludes:
…None of this has led us to a choice in the nominating contests, never mind for the presidency. The majority of Americans are in the same position. That’s why they should be allowed to see and hear more of these candidates, and not have to settle for the judgments of the people of Iowa and New Hampshire.
Oh, we’ve seen and heard plenty. And who’s being forced to “settle for the judgments of the people of Iowa and New Hampshire?” Voters in the rest of the nation’s caucuses and primaries will get their chance. Someone has to go first. The Times proposes a regional system “in which states are divided into regional groups that vote on a designated day. The honor of going first would rotate year to year among the regions.” But even if the Times editorial board got its way, I guarantee you the paper would still complain that the designated first-in-the-nation regional group to vote had an unfair electoral advantage that tainted other regional voters’ decisions.
