I couldn’t care less what Edwards’s comfort level is. All that matters to me is that he supports child-killing, race discrimination and a host of other issues incompatible with my beliefs.She takes Kane to task also. Kane writes
In fact, Edwards said he knew enough about black voters to understand what they dislike about national politicians who reach out to their community only at election time.Barber responds
This is what masquerades as insight these days. Name one person who enjoys when people come around only when they want something.Now that's an Ann Coulter-quality zinger. Barber continues
What’s so bad about white liberals “reaching out” to blacks? Reaching out is not the problem per se; it’s the race pandering that inevitably follows. There seems to be a misunderstanding of the word pander, which is defined as “cater[ing] to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit[ing] their weaknesses.” It’s a pejorative term and not synonymous with “reaching out.” Playing on the anger and resentment of one race and socioeconomic class toward another is not good.John Edwards looks at Eugene Kane and he doesn't see an American, or a voter, or a successful journalist or an influential columnist, he sees a black person. He feels compelled to inform the black man that's he's accustomed to being around black people. It's almost like he needs to reassure Kane that he doesn't get uncomfortable being in the same room with, you know, "your sort".
I don't know whether to be more amazed that a current politician said such a thing or that a black columnist was not offended by it.
Can you imagine what would happen if Bush or Cheney said something like that? But the media double standard on this is well known. What is less well known is that the Democrats are still the party of racists. In the sixties the national party leaders did a 180 and started supporting civil rights, but there was no mass exodus from the party.
Some left, of course, but most of the segregationists stayed. And it shows.