Are PUMAs racist? Colbert I. King seems to think so. In his WaPo column of today, A Suicidal Choice for Clinton Supporters, King delivers a laundry list of reasons why, in his opinion, it makes no sense for Hillary fans to support McCain. Since he brooks no rational justification for good Dems to desert Obama, by process of elimination, King apparently sees racism as the explanation.
Here's King's punch line [emphasis added]:
So what's drawing Hillary Clinton's die-hard fans to John McCain? Is the attraction only skin-deep?
In an election pitting McCain against the first major-party African-American presidential candidate in history, it's impossible to read King's "skin deep" as other than an unsubtle reference to race and racism.
Obama presents himself as post-partisan and post-racial. But if his prominent supporters are going to argue that there is no reason other than racism for Hillary fans to support McCain, Obama's candidacy could, ironically, harm his own party and deepen the very racial divide he would purport to heal.
Note II: The Pro-Abortion Childrens Advocate
Have a look at this paragraph from King's column [emphasis added]:
How can Democrats, drawn to Hillary Clinton by her powerful advocacy for children, inspired by her support for the rights guaranteed in Roe v. Wade, emboldened by her work as a champion for middle- and working-class men and women and her courage in the face of relentless right-wing attacks, even think of putting a John McBush in the White House?
At first reading, I took the mention of Hillary's support for Roe as supposed evidence of Hillary's "advocacy for children." Now. that would have been supremely grotesque. A subsequent reading reveals the two were meant to be unrelated, simply elements in a list of Hillary's sterling qualities.
Even so, isn't there something jarring about describing someone as a powerful advocate for children, and in the very next phrase citing her support for the right to end unborn childrens' lives?