Why should I be outraged?  There is still racism in this country, no?

Gee, isn't that what most people consider the republican party to be? A group of racists? Unfortunately, this primary season we are seeing the dixicrats in the democratic party and it is not pretty.

The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

Is it a club, a spade, or a heart?  And is it trump?  Just curious....

right, people voting not for Obama are all racists.  I said it last week - Obama's camp keeps putting this bull shit artist talking point and it will turn off the majority of Americans.

sure, racism exists.  I don't think anyone thinks it doesn't.  But to smear everyone who won't vote for Obama is a racist is insulting.

It's been shoved down our throats by the media and Obama's surrogates for the last few months that anybody who doesn't support Obama is a racist.  I don't know about the rest of Hillary's supporters, but I'm pretty sick of being considered a racist, especially when I'm a minority myself.  And this whole myth the media runs with that Hillary only gets the votes of poor, white, uneducatd, country folk is ridiculous.  She has the more diverse base, she wins among Hispanics, Asians, Jews, etc.  Obama's campaign has constantly made race an issue while accusing others of racism, and I've had enough of it.

This seems like a mistake in message from the Obama campaign, so hinged on "unity", yet the insinuation that Republicans in general are racist seems a bit unhinged from me. The message of unity is in direct conflict with this message that Ploffe sent out--and certainly wasn't nessessary. I think that if we want to make ourselves more accesiable to mainstream Americans and rural Americans, branding GOP'ers who like McCain as racists is not the way to go about it. Sounds like more typical elitism today...

It's true.  The racists are in McCain's camp.  If they refuse to vote for Obama based on race they probably wouldn't vote for any Democrat.  That's not playing the race card, that's just reality.  Curious why you choose to take offense.

IS NO CONTROVERSY -

Its solidifying his AA support in NC.

But maybe at the expense of Indiana

That racists are unlikely to vote for Barack Obama doesn't really strike me as a grand revelation.

this is just ASKING to lose this November. You can't lump racists and a Presidential candidate together, unless you are Jonnie Cochran

And what, dear diarist, are you doing with this diary, other then playing the race card? By pretending to be concerned, I guess that would make you a concern troll.

(1) There is at least some truth to it.

(2) It's a message that Democrats have been trying to sell for a while ("Southern strategy," etc.).

(3) Despite all that, I don't think it's a productive message to come from a Presidential campaign.  It's a good message for academics, campaign consultants, and possible congresspersons, especially representatives who reside in districts that let them get away with saying things like that.

But the President is supposed to be one President for one country.  Statements like that can be pretty offensive to Republicans.

Presidents have a tough balancing act to pull: as a Democrat, I want my Democratic Presidents to kick some Republican ass--but as an American, I want every President to be able to reach across the aisle and form some kind of rough consensus on important issues, especially the ones where cooperation is needed.  Usually the best approach comes from soft talk and carrying a big stick.  Use the stick when you have to get things done, but use soft talk as much as you can.

Now this isn't nearly as bad as Obama saying it himself, but it does come from the top of the campaign.  It's not a plus.

Gee Gredel, so now you KNOW Wright is a racist? Because you've read everyone of his sermons, talked to him personally and know his views and have attend his church?  That's like me calling Bill a racist based only on a few comments he's made in public.

This resonates with Axelrod's quote that working-class white Americans aren't worth fighting for anyway, because they sometimes vote Republican.

These guys are normally very sharp about their talking points, and it surprises me that they are giving so much ammunition to the "arrogant" and "out of touch" memes.

Calling Republicans racist is their MO? Ok. I thought Dems agreed with that.

I've got to wonder where some of you knuckleheads have been the last 50 years; You certainly haven't been paying attention to American politics. Let's take a look at what Plouffe said:

the vast, vast majority of voters who would not vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in John McCain's camp already

Now, if any of you had any understanding of what's transpired since the Civil Rights Movement, you'd know that that's a huge "Duh!" The "solid" Democratic South, a region where the number of Republican representatives could once be counted on one hand has been dominated by the Republican Party for several decades now. It's been a huge part of the Republican Party's electoral success since 1964 -- the last year, by the way, that the Democratic Party succeeded in winning a majority of the white vote. Coincidence? I think not. Ronald Reagan understood this when he talked about "welfare queens" and gave speeches about "state's rights" in Philadelphia, Mississippi. It's what allowed him to appeal to older working-class whites (especially Catholics) in parts of the industrial East and Midwest. These so-called "Reagan Democrats," which now form a not-insignificant portion of Senator Clinton's coalition and are celebrated on this website to no end, were then and are now motivated in no small part by issues of race. Thankfully, the number of "Reagan Democrats" (and "Nixon Democrats," for that matter) is small and continues to shrink. The majority of these folks have either died or become Republicans. As a result of this fact and the Republicans' contemporary control of the South, the Republican Party has become home to a decent number of unreconstructed racists.

From an article in the Washington Post:

Jon Krosnick, a psychologist and political scientist at Stanford University, who independently assessed the studies, said it remains to be seen how significant the correlation is between racial bias and political affiliation.

For example, he said, the study could not tell whether racial bias was a better predictor of voting preference than, say, policy preferences on gun control or abortion. But while those issues would be addressed in subsequent studies -- Krosnick plans to get random groups of future voters to take the psychological tests and discuss their policy preferences -- he said the basic correlation was not in doubt.

"If anyone in Washington is skeptical about these findings, they are in denial," he said. "We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice predicts voting. Republicans are supported by whites with prejudice against blacks. If people say, 'This takes me aback,' they are ignoring a huge volume of research."

Generalizing and calling all republicans racists is a problem. I have no problem calling out an individual if there's proof...no matter what the party affiliation is.

Therefore, time to find a bunch of people to call racist.

Generalizing and calling all republicans racists is a problem. I have no problem calling out an individual if there's proof...no matter what the party affiliation is.

Let me try to explain this to you. All square are quadrilaterals, but not all quadrilaterals are squares. In this case, David Plouffe is arguing (correctly, I might note) that the vast majority of people who won't vote for Barack Obama because of his race are Republicans and will be supporting John McCain. This does not mean that the vast majority of the people supporting John McCain are racists. Do you understand the logical fallacy inherent in argument?  

now just because we don't vote for Obama, we are racists and in John McCain's camp?  What, he doesn't need anybody?  Did he just throw half the democratic party under the bus?