If Obama Loses, Don't Assume Racism

The New Republic: We Must Confront The Fact That Race Is Not The Only Reason Obama Could Lose

(The New Republic)  This column was written by John McWhorter.

---

In the increasingly unlikely event that Barack Obama does not become president, Martin Luther King's dream would reveal itself as tragically unrealized 40 years after his death. Not, however, because whites were standing in that dream's way, but because of the black people standing alongside them.

Yes, black people. I find myself unable to trust that more than a sliver of black America would be able, if Obama lost, to assess that outcome according to--of all things--the content of his character.

For 40 years, black America has been misled by a claim that we can only be our best with the total eclipse of racist bias. Few put it in so many words, but the obsession with things like tabulating ever-finer shades of racism and calling for a "national conversation" on race in which whites would listen to blacks talk about racism are based on an assumption: that the descendants of African slaves in the United States are the only group of humans in history whose problems will vanish with a "level playing field," something no other group has ever supposed could be a reality.

The general conversation is drifting slowly away from this Utopianist canard, but nothing could help hustle it into obsolescence more than an Obama presidency, especially for the generation who grew up watching a black man and his family in the White House and had little memory of a time when it would have been considered an impossibility. At the same time, nothing could breathe new life into this gestural pessimism like an Obama loss. It would be the perfect enabler for a good ten years of aggrieved mulling over "the persistence of racism," which, for all of its cathartic seduction, would make no one less poor, more gainfully employed, or better educated.

The prevailing sentiment would be expressed in tart declarations, considered the height of black authenticity, that bigotry did in the Obama campaign. Even now, the idea that white swing voters might pass on him because of his positions or campaign performance is considered a peculiar notion, likely from someone unhip to the gospel that America remains all about racism despite Colin Powell and Oprah. The money question is considered to be why our Great Black Hope isn't polling tens of points ahead of John McCain and his discredited party. But Obama has been a sure shot only with Blue America college-town sorts, animated not only by Obama's intellect, but also by his "diverseness" and its symbolic import for showing that our nasty past is truly past.

Obama, in fact, has limitations as a communicator beyond black people and the "Stuff White People Like" set. In his first debate with John McCain, when McCain assailed him as a big spender, Obama was almost strangely uninterested in pointing up the things he wants to spend money on--i.e., exactly the things needed by the struggling working class people he has trouble making inroads with. Luckily, he's gotten past this some recently (see his calling health care a "right" during the second debate and his brass-tacks speech in Toledo on Monday). However, overall, professorial Obama still seems oblivious to the power of slogans. Reagan had "Morning in America"; Bill Clinton had "The End of Welfare As We Know It." Obama has had the likes of the gauzy "Yes, We Can," stirring as an opening gambit and good on T-shirts, but offering little to the folks facing layoffs while trying to pay their mortgage. To struggling black folks, ethnic identification pushes Obama over the edge regardless. But all folks aren't black.

The Wisconsin chairman of the Republican Party notes, then, that for lunch pail whites, "I don't think race is an issue at all. A bigger problem is that Barack Obama has a sort of show pony style. The speeches and the classic double speak and being a great orator, that kind of thing doesn't play well in Wisconsin." That is, there are plenty of non-racist whites who need a candidate to show them something more than I.Q. and a poignant multicultural provenance. In not finding Obama's dreams of his father worthy of a vote, they are evaluating him as Dr. King would have counseled.

These are transitional times. In a recent Bloggingheads dialogue, Ta-Nehisi Coates admitted to me that Iowa had forced him to "reassess" his pessimism as to how far America has come on race. If Obama loses, people like Coates will desist in their reassessments, and settle back into their cognitive comfort zone. Whites will cheer on the sidelines: Nothing would establish a Good White Person's bona fides on the race thing more than assenting that the racism "out there" is "still around" and has vanquished the audacity of hope.

The grievous result of this fetishization of racism would be that it would put a kibosh on the upsurge in black voters' political engagement amidst the Obamenon. Newspaper articles would quote blacks disillusioned from getting excited about any future black candidate--e.g. "I thought maybe America was finally getting past racism but it turned out not to be true." 2009 would be a year of countless panel discussions, quickie books, and celebrated rap couplets wallowing in the notion that the white man wouldn't let Obama into the Oval Office where he belonged, urgently reminding us that to be black is still to be a victim.

Promising black politicians like Cory Booker, Deval Patrick, Adrian Fenty, and Harold Ford would find it harder than Obama did to attract support for presidential runs: No matter how stirring their speeches, the good word would be, "Look what happened to Obama!" And for years to come, professors would teach the 2008 election as a lesson about racism rather than about a heartening near-victory that no one could have imagined as recently as 15 years ago.

In August the hot news was The New York Times/CBS poll noting that one in 20 whites said they would not vote for a black man. Even those most self-appointedly vigilant about the depth of America's racist roots had a hard time pretending that one in 20 was exactly threatening--but then the poll also showed that one in five whites thought most of their friends would not vote for a black presidential candidate. But imagine a poll asking people about their friends that revealed, say, that they thought most of them weren't racists--something not hard to imagine. Social scientists would likely laugh it out of the room--"anecdotal," and so on--because it would be telling them something they didn't want to hear.

In September it was the AP/Yahoo poll making the inbox rounds, showing that a third of white Democrats agreed with the pairing of at least one negative adjective with blacks. But how hard is it to imagine that someone who says black people are more likely to, for example, be angry than whites might nevertheless be an Obama fan? After all, it wasn't so long ago that the wise cocktail party comment on Obama was that he is "the kind of black person white people are okay with." In line with that, the same poll shows that three out of five whites who pair a negative adjective with blacks intend to vote for Obama anyway.

And so it goes: All evidence is that the role of racism in Obama's reception has been and will be blissfully marginal. Yet it is hardly unlikely that the race will be close. And as such, because there surely are backwards people out there who will not vote for Obama because he is black, it will not be impossible to fashion an argument that racism decided a McCain victory.

Of course, the best case will only be that racism tipped the election by a few points. But besides the fact that there will be equally coherent arguments that it did not, the proper analogy would be that pneumonia is often what kills AIDS patients. No one would claim that this means that pneumonia, as opposed to lung cancer, heart disease, or AIDS itself, is a grievously urgent medical crisis in America. Yet black America's shorthand consensus will be founded upon just such a logical fallacy: that "Obama lost because America remains a deeply racist country."

Why would such an athletically pessimistic conclusion be so attractive to black people? Partly because of insecurity, as Shelby Steele artfully framed it in his signature book titled, as it happens, The Content of Our Character. Unsure of our worth after 350 years of abuse and just 40 years blinking in the light of an America past Jim Crow, we too easily seek the crutch of noble victimhood as a substitute for a true inner pride it can still be hard to feel deep down.

Another reason is that for blacks who are not poor--i.e. most black people, as quiet as it's kept--this Cassandra tendency is a gesture of solidarity with our less fortunate fellow blacks. Black America is poised awkwardly between a private commitment to keeping our heads up despite the obstacles and a sense that our public face should be one of tribalist plangency. Tyler Perry's plays and movies are runaway hits with black audiences featuring Perry's drag grandmother character Madea counseling Bill Cosby-esque "deal with it" wisdom. Yet, as Peggy Noonan nailed it on blacks' reception of Reverend Jeremiah Wright's victimologist rantings, we are also committed to Walt Whitman's "barbaric yawp," asserting "I'm still loyal to our bitterness."

This bone-deep antipathic sentiment is processed as a key element in informed black identity. To let it go is to risk, for one, seeming unfeeling about the innocent black 17-year-old slammed against a police car by cops trawling a neighborhood on a drug bust. Then also, to let it go would mean imagining that Barack Obama missed the prize simply because he wasn't up to it. Many black people aren't ready to face something like that squarely just yet: Black America, understandably given its history, is nursing an inner-wound.

That Obama's loss in the general election may have more to do with his performance than his melanin will be treated as something to acknowledge parenthetically at best. And that will be a dismissal of the very lesson Dr. King tried to teach us. Two decades ago, when Jesse Jackson ran for president and Time magazine did a cover with his picture and the headline "The Jackson Factor", it was just to sell copies: We all knew America wasn't ready for a black President. Perhaps the reaction was partly due to certain things about Jackson himself, but who knew that not so long later, a black man would be within a hair's breadth of the White House in part because of his race? Yet, if we truly understand that King's lesson was that black people are whites' equals and not eternal poster children, then we must confront the fact that race is not the only reason Obama could lose.

King's next birthday celebration will be, as it happens, the day before Inauguration Day, and I dread the prospect of black America treating King Day as an opportunity to rue how McCain's swearing in will show "far we have to go" 40 years after King's death, rather than celebrating that how close Obama came to the prize showed how magnificently far we have come.

[mikespeir]

I agree with the general thrust of this article. Sure, there''s still a lot of prejudice out there. But it really isn''t as rampant among us whites as is often claimed. Granted, I''ll be voting more against Palin than for Obama. But, despite having some reservations about his stance on some things, I think I''ll feel a certain giddiness at the prospect of a black Presidency at last if he wins.

[whitemale08]

What else would it have been?

Palin has no experience and John McCain is a Republican the party that has destroyed our economy.

[rushlimpdrug]

"If Obama Loses, Don''t Assume Racism"

Oh, is he black?

[paris1969]

The tone of this article sounds like this is Obama''s only chance to become President. He can run again in 2012 and by then have more experience behind him. Also, in this list:Promising black politicians like Cory Booker, Deval Patrick, Adrian Fenty, and Harold Ford would find it harder than Obama did to attract support for presidential runs ..

... you left out Michael Nutter and he is in fact the most promising of all for a run for President.

[paris1969]

whitemale wrote: "Palin has no experience and John McCain is a Republican the party that has destroyed our economy."
..... Palin is not running for President and her experience is no less than Obama''s ... and the Democrats sold Americans out to the credit card companies and Freddie & Fannie .. let''s get the record straight before it''s too late!!

[wpatton5]

it won''t be racism, i agree. but i wonder if we can honestly say that race does not account for some points? how many? i don''t know. if he were catholic, or jewish, (gasp) arabic, it would be a similar conversation. mit romney''s religion received national attention. let''s not be naive. we have progressed - wonderfully and immeasureably. but race is still a factor.

[danito123]

Its seems that the racist bigots have made sure that racism is a factor in this so called "campaign"! Aside from the fact that Obama is black AND WHITE, he should lose on his lack of merit anyway!

[apachelx]

I work with several people of color, and they have said that Obama scare them, because of his spending plans and recommended policy changes

[idnnsg]

If Obama loses, I am definitely leaving this country. 95% of this country now says we are headed in the WRONG direction. If, somehow, those 95% vote for McCain, who promises MORE OF THE SAME, rather than voting for Obama, who promises to change this country''s direction, then that is positive proof that this country is an IN.SANE AS.SYLUM, and I''m leaving!

The only way I can see McCain winning is by CHEATING. I know he''ll try; the GOP already has a long track record of suppressing votes, intimidating voters, lying to people about where to go vote, eliminating voting machines from democratic precincts, spreading total LIES about canditates by robophone at the last minute (example: Bush''s people said McCain had an illigitimate black baby, and McCain lost.) Now, those SAME people are running McCain''s campaign.

[idnnsg]

paris1969 said, "and the Democrats sold Americans out to the credit card companies and Freddie & Fannie"

Oh, it was the democrats, was it? Don''t you know that lobbyists for F&F are running McCain''s campaign?

[janetlynn12]

If he loses it could also be attributed to all the lies McCain has told in his campaign to crucify Obama--- and all the idiots that buy in to it. There has been no proof offered about the Ayres controversy. Have any of you even tried to research it? You might start with this letter from the Weatherman prosecutor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/l10ayers.html

[brentsimm]

if he loses, one could scream racism. if he wins, one could scream reverse racism. i would guess that more african americans will vote for him b/c he''s black, than will whites vote against him b/c he''s black. what''s more prevelant in today''s society? is it whites who hate blacks, or blacks who hate whites? i am a minority. in texas even, i see more bitter, bigot african americans than i do bigot white americans. maybe it has nothing to do with this article, but it''s just an observation.

[dickyounger]

Neither Republicans nor Democrats "destroyed" our economy. First, it isn''t destroyed and, second, as much deregulation occurred on the Bill Clinton''s watch as on George Bush''s. Both parties had fair warning of the troubles to come from a host of financial experts, but no one paid heed. There were plenty of warning signs from the 1990''s onward.I point out to my fellow conservatives that government regulation, when drafted correctly, does not exist to inhibit business or free enterprise. Its purpose is to prevent financial crisis, such as the present crisis, and to avoid bailout expense to the taxpayer.

[dickyounger]

Neither Republicans nor Democrats "destroyed" our economy. First, it isn''t destroyed and, second, as much deregulation occurred on the Bill Clinton''s watch as on George Bush''s. Both parties had fair warning of the troubles to come from a host of financial experts, but no one paid heed. There were plenty of warning signs from the 1990''s onward.I point out to my fellow conservatives that government regulation, when drafted correctly, does not exist to inhibit business or free enterprise. Its purpose is to prevent financial crisis, such as the present crisis, and to avoid bailout expense to the taxpayer.

[pvperson]

"it won''''t be racism"?

That depends on how much he loses by, doesn''t it? Since only a fool would think that racism isn''t alive in America, it becomes a question of how much does racism affect the election. If Obama loses by a small percent, then I think it will be accurate to say that racism cost him the presidency.

But then, he''s going to win in a landslide so, it doesn''t matter.

[pvperson]

Apachelx , sure, sure you do.

The easiest line to tell a racist is, "Why I''m not racist, some of my best friends are black"

[cdfoxtrot4]

When you have factory workers saying things like "I would never vote for that n----r", as has been reported in the mainstream media, the only conclusion one can draw given current polls, is that racism is at least partly responsible should Senator Obama not win. He''s worked incredibly hard and hasn''t put a foot wrong in his positive and optimistic campaign. For the polls to be proven wrong can only lead to one conclusion. You betcha. Wink, wink.

[cmp271]

If a black man gets into the white house, the blacks in this country will become even worse with their attitude than they already are. No one owes blacks anything. Blacks owe the taxpayers a fortune for all the hand outs they''ve received over the last 40 years.

Obama should lose this election. He has no qualifications of real merit, lacks any experience, has no real Planks in his platform, and is depending on the black vote to get in. Obama is who brought up race, not the whites! There are more bigoted blacks than there are whites. Blacks will vote him in "yo man, a brutha is runninna and we all gotta ve-ote the man in" never mind we all don no wha he iz standin fo, and it not be like a nappy headed ho!! He iz a brutha, and tha is all. Ignoramisses!

How about the Hispanic vote? Who has talked to them lately?

[dan9111]

Blacks owe the taxpayers a fortune for all the hand outs they''''ve received over the last 40 years.

Posted by cmp271

If that were true, then some of the elderly and veterans seriously owe the taxpayers serious bucks for demanding excess social security and entitlement without our voluntary participation!! It is all robbery plain and simple. But why try to remedy such a thing using the same government that caused the problem?

The important thing to note is nobody owes money to anybody without mutual agreement. Otherwise theft would be OK because it settles an imagined debt. No, debt must be real and voluntary for it to be owed. Just because you and I are victims of extortion-taxation from various parasitic individuals I mention does not translate into us having a privilege to rob whole groups in retaliation. The blacks are victims of all this government intrusion too. Segregation was enforced by governments, look it up. Racism and political-correctness both are impossible without being sustained by governments who profit from such lunacy.

[shaggydo-2009]

OneAmerican7
There is no difference here than is demonstrated in Socialist and Communist dicatorships around the world.

Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro and george bush and thug cheney are prime examples of the type of society the republicans have forced on us.

AMERICANS MUST REJECT THIS TYPE OF POLITICS, AND REJECT McCain-palin IF WE ARE TO REMAIN A FREE SOCIETY.

YOUR LIVES AND LIVELYHOODS, AS WELL AS THE SURVIVAL OF THIS COUNTRY IS AT STAKE.

CHOOSE YOUR VOTE WISELY!

[shaggydo-2009]

The New Republic is the same old republican rag its always been. It''s filled with racists in $10,000 suits who claim to be patriotic but only care about control the wealth and power for themselves and their cronies. The average person needs to know this fact they do not give a damns about you or this country except what they can use it for!

[beader59]

Both racism and reverse racism has played a big part in this election process. So both blacks and whites can take credit for their poor behavior. It is just as racist to vote for a black man just because he is black as it is not to vote for him because he is black. Obama seems like a polished professional, but I don''t believe he is ready or qualified to be our President and I am a Democrat that is more than liberal. This of course would mean I would rather eat dirt than see JohnBoy elected. If our country is bad now, we might as well just nuke ourselves and get it over with. So racism is disgusting and irrational. Get over yourselves and vote for politicians who are best-suited for the position based on their record.

[stopkidding]

Not so, Beader. Black voters go 90% with white democrats and have for forty years. That excitement over the historical candidacy of Obama is somehow "reverse racism" is another right-wing canard to try and undermine Obama''s strong, issues-based campaign.

[truthspeake2]

Obama/Biden 2008...RIP GOP!

[mikelpond]

No, I would have thought greed would be the first reason, second would be the desire to hold on to power at all costs.
Racism would be a strong third though.

[upto1947]

Did I miss something? I did think he was black. Who do you blame that on?

[imnho]

If Obama loses and its not racisim then someone stole the election.

[tiredofthebs]

Both racism and reverse racism has played a big part in this election process. So both blacks and whites can take credit for their poor behavior. It is just as racist to vote for a black man just because he is black as it is not to vote for him because he is black. Obama seems like a polished professional, but I don''''t believe he is ready or qualified to be our President and I am a Democrat that is more than liberal. This of course would mean I would rather eat dirt than see JohnBoy elected. If our country is bad now, we might as well just nuke ourselves and get it over with. So racism is disgusting and irrational. Get over yourselves and vote for politicians who are best-suited for the position based on their record.

Posted by beader59 at 06:54 PM : Oct 17, 2008

This posting voices my sentiment too. I''m black & DEM. I will be sitting this election out. Of course I would love to see a black president in my lifetime. But the truth is I would be voting for Obama solely because he''s black. Experience does matter. I can''t in good conscience vote for a State Senator who hasn''t completed a full term in the US Senate.

[countryfirst]

I think personally that black people are being racist themselves for wanting obama just beacause he is black.I dont think America is ready for a black pres. and I dont think Obama will win because our nation is still really racist even though you may not see it.Im a Conservative Republican so any way black or white I vote Republican beaucse my views go with theirs. McCain-Palin''08!! VICTORY!

[countryfirst]

Also, I thank beader59. Experience really does matter! Even though Sarah Palin doesnt have much, your not voting for Palin, Your voting for McCain. And dont give me this McCain droping dead soon bull beaucse thats false! Back to beader59''s comment, I would also like to see a black president myself but i really think America is not ready. We still are really racist! and with Obama not having alot of experience doesnt help one bit. But I do belive that there would be a better chance if Collin Powel or Condalisa Rice would run beacause they know what there getting into.

[countryfirst]

McCain Palin''08!

If Obama loses and its not racisim then someone stole the election. Posted by IMNHO
*****
Not to step on your props, but the National Review has another writer, Diana West, who holds that there are three horses in the race, and the third one, like the third rail of train tracks, is Obama''s radicalism. You know, all those "associates" in Obama''s "comfort zone." Funny how that phrase crops up for both writers. Then there was the "horse" race in West''s opinion piece and the "show pony" in this one. I think maybe these people, spending so much time between the covers together, have lost any claim to diversity or objectivity. It''s all moot, however. Obama will be elected President of the United States and John will return to the Senate, defeated and forever the answer to a trivia question: who was the $4.7 million dollar man beaten by the first black candidate for President of the U.S.?
I have no inkling of the trivia question about Sarah Palin and I don''t care. I''ll take my satisfaction just looking at the pictures.

"Experience does matter. I can''''t in good conscience vote for a State Senator who hasn''''t completed a full term in the US Senate. Posted by TiredoftheBS
*****
So it''s safe to say you would not have supported a Democrat who was elected and quit within one year, and was subsequently elected and quit within one year a second time. Pity Andrew Jackson, he would not have had your "conscientious" support.
Add Martin Van Buren to that list but you''d rush to support Franklin Pierce, of course, along with the "experienced" James Buchanan whose ".. inability to avert the Civil War has subsequently been assessed as the worst single failure by a United States President." Then there is Grover Cleveland who was never a state senator, representative or Senator at all; but he did perform hangings. So there is a 60-40 chance you''d sit that one out. Definitely have to invoke your conscience against voting for Woodrow Wilson, only spent two years as Governor! There goes the Federal Reserve Act! I don''t know, would good conscience keep you from voting for FDR, since reelected for a second term November 5, 1912, he resigned from the New York State Senate on March 17, 1913. That''s only one year, you know. You get my drift I suspect. Like you said, experience matters. It''s a matter of conscience.

[c-mo6]

This posting voices my sentiment too. I''''m black & DEM. I will be sitting this election out. Of course I would love to see a black president in my lifetime. But the truth is I would be voting for Obama solely because he''''s black. Experience does matter. I can''''t in good conscience vote for a State Senator who hasn''''t completed a full term in the US Senate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by TiredoftheBS at 09:08 PM : Oct 17, 2008
+ report abuse

You''re an idiot. So if he was white with the same amount of experience you wouldn''t vote either? Highly unlikely, You don''t vote mcsame wins period. Youre no democrat and i seriously doubt your black.If your not helping your hurting think about it.

[flvoter]

Where was it ever assumed that the first Black person to run for president of the US had to be elected or it would be a failure of the Black community? Come on: people lose elections all the time! I won''t vote for Obama because of his politics, his lack of experience, and, yes, his charisma. He is too smooth. So it has nothing to do with race from my perspective.

Nobody can be liked by everybody, so even if there are some people out there making racist noises, this should not be interpreted by the Blacks or the media to mean that there is rampant racism in this country. And... now that I''m writing, I must say that I don''t believe the Black community has been well-served by the outspoken people who are so visibly spewing reverse racist comments: Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc., etc.

[flvoter]

Where was it ever assumed that the first Black person to run for president of the US had to be elected or it would be a failure of the Black community? Come on: people lose elections all the time! I won''t vote for Obama because of his politics, his lack of experience, and, yes, his charisma. He is too smooth. So it has nothing to do with race from my perspective.

Nobody can be liked by everybody, so even if there are some people out there making racist noises, this should not be interpreted by the Blacks or the media to mean that there is rampant racism in this country. And... now that I''m writing, I must say that I don''t believe the Black community has been well-served by the outspoken people who are so visibly spewing reverse racist comments: Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc., etc.

[flvoter]

Where was it ever assumed that the first Black person to run for president of the US had to be elected or it would be a failure of the Black community? Come on: people lose elections all the time! I won''t vote for Obama because of his politics, his lack of experience, and, yes, his charisma. He is too smooth. So it has nothing to do with race from my perspective.

Nobody can be liked by everybody, so even if there are some people out there making racist noises, this should not be interpreted by the Blacks or the media to mean that there is rampant racism in this country. And... now that I''m writing, I must say that I don''t believe the Black community has been well-served by the outspoken people who are so visibly spewing reverse racist comments: Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc., etc.

[shutyourlips]

Why even cast such predictions? I ask the people who read this article to question WHY? Why would the author of this article want to play the part of Soothsayer-Psychic-predictor-of-things-to-possibly-come? And why has CBS News even assented to publish this article?

[shutyourlips]

Elizabeth

this article annoys me for one reason: it takes black people to task anticipatorily. Unseemly and distasteful self-righteousness.

Scott

I found this article UNREADABLE! I have never seen such poorly structured sentences. The subject is interesting, but I could hardly follow the author''s points. New Republic, who is your editor?

Chris Ware

Here''s the riddle: Once racism disappers, what will become of commentators who make their living pointing out that no one recognizes the absence of racism?

christo

Americans are a pathetically fearful people, but they are also, like the great mass of human beings on the planet, solicitous of pleasure. And this is what this election comes down to, in the context of Obama''s quest for the presidency. What gives them the greater kick at this particular historical moment: the vile pleasure of wallowing in the muck of racism (and let us not kid ourselves fear and loathing are indeed forms of pleasure, thus our taste for the macabre and the grotesque and the like; exhibit a: the baldheaded guy with the monkey in his hand; exhibit b: an image of Obama on a dollar bill surrounded by watermelon, ribs, and fried chicken; "racism" just doesn''t do justice to these stultified forms of behaviour) or the more elevated pleasure of doing the right thing and electing for the presidency someone with intellect and character who just happens to be black? I take my pleasure in the latter.

[jimbo7776]

The author of this piece really needs a drug screen. Your editor needs to stop watching the Sarah Palin Miss Wasilla clip on YouTube and look at the incredibly poor grammar and sentence structure of the author. On second thought, you gents go back to whatever you were doing. Better that you continue TNRstraubation than wander out into the traffic of coherent discourse, you''ll hurt yourselves.
P.S. I''m a 6''1" buzz cut white male, very fiscally conservative, socially moderate, former republican. (the small "r" in republican is quite intentional)
Jim in Denver

[dustymag]

wow.. could you make your article more difficult to comprehend with more references and articulation that makes no sense? the fact is, if you had anything CLEAR to say, you would express it in a way that didn''t celebrate your vocabulary, but actually presented a point. The ability to turn a phrase will never replace actual meaning. After all, if your reader has to pause to comprehend what you''re trying to say, then you are delinquent in your mission to communicate. See Strunk.
I hope I''ve made this flowery enough to understand, oh Wise CBS news guy. Do you talk like this? Or, just snicker when you collect the paycheck?

[dustymag]

Wow.. Could you make your article more difficult to comprehend with more references and articulation that makes no sense? The fact is, if you had anything CLEAR to say, you would express it in a way that didn''t celebrate your vocabulary, but actually presented a point. The ability to turn a phrase will never replace actual meaning. After all, if your reader has to pause to comprehend what you''re trying to say, then you are delinquent in your mission to communicate. See Strunk... Please.
I hope I''ve made this flowery enough for you to understand, oh Wise CBS news guy. Do you talk like this? Or, just snicker when you collect the paycheck?

[dustymag]

Wow.. Could you make your article more difficult to comprehend with more references and articulation that makes no sense? The fact is, if you had anything CLEAR to say, you would express it in a way that didn''t celebrate your vocabulary, but actually presented a point. The ability to turn a phrase will never replace actual meaning. After all, if your reader has to pause to comprehend what you''re trying to say, then you are delinquent in your mission to communicate. See Strunk... Please.
I hope I''ve made this flowery enough for you to understand, oh Wise CBS news guy. Do you talk like this? Or, just snicker when you collect the paycheck?

[dustymag]

Wow.. Could you make your article more difficult to comprehend with more references and articulation that makes no sense? The fact is, if you had anything CLEAR to say, you would express it in a way that didn''t celebrate your vocabulary, but actually presented a point. The ability to turn a phrase will never replace actual meaning. After all, if your reader has to pause to comprehend what you''re trying to say, then you are delinquent in your mission to communicate. See Strunk... Please!
I hope I''ve made this flowery enough for you to understand, oh Wise CBS news guy. Do you talk like this? Or, just snicker when you collect the paycheck?

[dustymag]

Wow.. Could you make your article more difficult to comprehend with more references and articulation that makes no sense? The fact is, if you had anything CLEAR to say, you would express it in a way that didn''t celebrate your vocabulary, but actually presented a point. The ability to turn a phrase will never replace actual meaning. After all, if your reader has to pause to comprehend what you''re trying to say, then you are delinquent in your mission to communicate. See Strunk... Please!
I hope I''ve made this flowery enough for you to understand, oh Wise CBS News Guy. Do you talk like this? Or, just snicker when you collect the paycheck?

[dustymag]

Wow.. Could you make your article more difficult to comprehend with more references and articulation that makes no sense? The fact is, if you had anything CLEAR to say, you would express it in a way that didn''t celebrate your vocabulary, but actually presented a point. The ability to turn a phrase will never replace actual meaning. After all, if your reader has to pause to comprehend what you''re trying to say, then you are delinquent in your mission to communicate. See Strunk... Please!
I hope I''ve made this flowery enough for you to understand, oh Wise CBS News Guy. Do you talk like this? Or, just snicker when you collect the paycheck?

[dustymag]

Wow.. Could you make your article more difficult to comprehend with more references and articulation that makes no sense? The fact is, if you had anything CLEAR to say, you would express it in a way that didn''t celebrate your vocabulary, but actually presented a point. The ability to turn a phrase will never replace actual meaning. After all, if your reader has to pause to comprehend what you''re trying to say, then you are delinquent in your mission to communicate. See Strunk... Please!
I hope I''ve made this flowery enough for you to understand, oh Wise CBS News Guy. Do you talk like this? Or, just snicker when you collect the paycheck?

[dustymag]

Wow.. Could you make your article more difficult to comprehend with more references and articulation that makes no sense? The fact is, if you had anything CLEAR to say, you would express it in a way that didn''t celebrate your vocabulary, but actually presented a point. The ability to turn a phrase will never replace actual meaning. After all, if your reader has to pause to comprehend what you''re trying to say, then you are delinquent in your mission to communicate. See Strunk... Please!
I hope I''ve made this flowery enough for you to understand, oh Wise CBS News Guy. Do you talk like this? Or, just snicker when you collect the paycheck?

[dustymag]

Wow.. Could you make your article more difficult to comprehend with more references and articulation that makes no sense? The fact is, if you had anything CLEAR to say, you would express it in a way that didn''t celebrate your vocabulary, but actually presented a point. The ability to turn a phrase will never replace actual meaning. After all, if your reader has to pause to comprehend what you''re trying to say, then you are delinquent in your mission to communicate. See Strunk... Please!
I hope I''ve made this flowery enough for you to understand, oh Wise CBS News Guy. Do you talk like this? Or, just snicker when you collect the paycheck?

[dustymag]

Wow.. Could you make your article more difficult to comprehend with more references and articulation that makes no sense? The fact is, if you had anything CLEAR to say, you would express it in a way that didn''t celebrate your vocabulary, but actually presented a point. The ability to turn a phrase will never replace actual meaning. After all, if your reader has to pause to comprehend what you''re trying to say, then you are delinquent in your mission to communicate. See Strunk... Please!
I hope I''ve made this flowery enough for you to understand, oh Wise CBS News Guy. Do you talk like this? Or, just snicker when you collect the paycheck?