Glenn Greenwald detects the use of the wingnut dog whistle:
Over at National Review, Jonah Goldberg has a "theory" about what might help Obama win in the general election. After noting that Obama will be "the first serious mainstream black contender for the White House," Goldberg warns (emphasis added):
I think it's worth imagining a certain scenario. Imagine the Democrats do rally around Obama. Imagine the media invests as heavily in him as I think we all know they will if he's the nominee -- and then imagine he loses. I seriously think certain segments of American political life will become completely unhinged. I can imagine the fear of this social unraveling actually aiding Obama enormously in 2008.
I wonder: in Jonah Goldberg's "imagination," which (ahem) "certain segments" of the American population exactly will "become completely unhinged" if Obama loses and thereby spawn "social unraveling"? And who are the people who are going so deeply to fear this "social unraveling" that they vote for Obama just in order to keep those "certain segments" in line and well-behaved?
Very subtle, Jonah! Instapundit Glenn Reynolds and the dependably frothy Michelle Malkin apparently go all bobblehead in agreement. Yes, there will be rioting from "certain segments" if Obama loses.
But hey, so what? There was rioting from "certain segments" when Bush lost, and nobody said boo.
In fact, "certain segments" now viewed with such suspicion by Goldberg, Reynolds and Malkin took their concerns with the "certain segments" who actually did "become unhinged" in 2000 where? To the streets? No, sir. To Congress. Where "certain segments" told them to sit down and "get over it."
Because those "segments" were done sending their staffers other "segments" to Florida to riot.