I thought this might be an interesting question since we generally consider ourselves to be the enlighted ones when it comes to racial issues.
Let's present it in terms of a hypothetical situation...the Dems nominated a black man for President and the GOP nominated a white person. And during the campaign, the GOP candidate and his/her operatives did the following...
- Mentioned the black Dem candidate's admitted past drug use and specualted that he may have also been a drug dealer although no such evidence exists...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/...
- Continually refered to the black Dem candidate by his full name, including his Muslim sounding middle name and incorrectly asserted that the candidate had attended a madrassa...
http://blogs.abcnews.com/...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
- Circulated e-mails stating the black Dem candidate, who says he is a Christian, is actually a Muslim...
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.c...
- Stated that it was LBJ, not MLK, that actually deserved the most credit for civil rights progress...
http://bourbonroom.blogs.foxnews.com...
- Reached back to the terms of slavery and said the black Dem candidate was "shucking and jiving"?
http://www.onemillionstrong.us/...
How would we respond to the GOP candidate and his/her campaign? Would we say the GOP candidate is making fair points or would we accuse the GOP candidate of race baiting? Or would we simply ignore it?
I think the answers to these questions might be telling.