No all white people who support Hillary are racist.

But most of them are.

Clinton not only plays "race cards" in every electoral venue she enters, but she has also virtually promised to nuke Tehran.

Clinton's supporters, who mostly oppose the war in Iraq, don't have a problem with her hawkish rhetoric. They dismiss it as "not serious," though do not afford McCain this lenience. They look away from Clinton's radical votes on Iraq and Iran, avoid the ways in which she resembles both McCain and Bush.

For Clintonistas, though, Obama is an "unelectable" "radical" because of his black preacher. His position on both Iraq and Iran line up squarely with the majority of Americans polled. Which likely means his positions square with about 50% of Clintonistas. Yet they fear him, hate him, vilify him.

Why, I wonder?

Could it be that the Clintonista poo-poohing of their candidates determination to bomb brown people in Iraq and Iran reveals some sort of latent racism? Could this latent racism be the source of their inability to notice the "radical" Obama offers ideas and proposals which are in agreement with a majority of their party?

Joan Walsh provides the perfect example of the Clintonista. You can see the struggle in her own words (and her pained face in her ill-advised video appearances). She knows that Obama is closer to 100% agreement with her own anything that matters. But she can't get over his blackness - his "radical" preacher, his "unelectability." She knows Hillary has lied, connived, and resorted to the very same tactics which Joan Walsh and other Clintonistas opposed when used against their candidate in the past.

Joan is willing to forgive Hillary for this radical shift, this change in tone; she is even willing to overlook the fact that, in the wake of the campaign adviser fiasco, the "change in tactics" ballyhooed by Clinton and her team is an admission of previous "negative" campaigning. She happily explains away Clinton's dishonest remarks from a prepared speech.

But Joan can't get past Obama's black preacher. (And now that the GOP has an attack ad on this matter, expect a pained column from Joan next week about how this demonstrates the "problem with Obama." Expect her to say that the "radical preacher" doesn't bother her, but what about all those other Americans who it will bother. Like so many liberal racists, Joan uses her imagined opinions of other Americans to justify her own prejudices.

Sad for Joan Walsh that she lacks the inner insight to realize this about herself and set about becoming a rational person who is not driven by secret prejudices, someone who is capable of self-examination and improvement.

Sad for America that so many Democrats seem to have the same blindness.

Two articles in as many days! You sure do post a lot when your candidate is "winning!" Well, kudos for your optimism and your attempt at fair play. It's better than one can get from 99.999% of other Clintonistas.

The two bits of "advice" are separated by five months of time. In Decmeber '07 Rove tells him to essentially "man-up" and get tough on Hillary. By May '08 it is clear such tactics do more harm than good for Obama, so Rove's advice is to back down. Given that five months is half an eternity in a political race, this seems more like evolving "advice" than contradictory.

The primary tactic of the right wing in this election has been to sow confusion and discord among Democrats. Thus far, it is the only consistently successful tactic applied in this campaign. Of course, getting Democratic politicos to damage themselves through internal bickering is about as difficult as getting water to flow downhill. The poor Democratic voters, disenfranchised by their own party, suffer from such a lack of vision and leadership they are willing to look to Republicans for answers.

"I know there is still a lot of racism and inequity in the world. But I don't want to hear about it from one of the victims, and I certainly don't want to be made uncomfortable by such revelations."

Like Barbara Bush, Joan doesn't want to pollute her "beautiful mind" with the ugly truth. She'd rather it be dressed in liberal platitudes, so she can still digest her dinner while white Americans murder non-whites at home and abroad.

The only editors who are bigger racists than Joan Walsh sit on the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal.

"Salonism."

In his "Thanksgiving Day Prayer," William S. Burroughs offered thanks for a nation "where nobody is allowed to mind his own business."

The majority-white Salon staff and majority-white America are apparently all too weak of ego and mind to withstand fiery criticism from a black preacher, a single man with a congregation -- obviously a threat to white people simply because they are black.

Time was that the men-folk of this country would wait past sundown and put on sheets and ride out to Rev. Wright's house to teach that "boy" some manners. An old-fashioned lynching is of course what White America has gone for again, only this time the racist right has managed to inflame so-called "liberals" into holding the rope.

Well, well, well. Good for you, Democrats! Good for you, Salon! I suppose it's much better to lynch a man than to be called a race-traitor. It's nice to see white people stand up for what they really, truly believe in!

Yes, indeed. Burroughs said it best. "Thanks for a nation of finks."

"You always were a headache and you always were a bore."

God Damn America. God Damn Americans.