That’s the best. Gotta love the Humester.

“Good *old fashioned* American racism.” So, racism circa 1972.

So, even though Gallup shows that “Obama’s Race May Be as Much a Plus as a Minus” in America 2008, it’s important to assure the European leftists clutching their Guardian newspaper that no, really, it’s still 1972 in America.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111049/Obamas-Race-May-Much-Plus-Minus.aspx

I’m not sure “satirizing” is the word you’re looking for. “Misleading” seems more apt. “Race-baiting” is even…apter? Let’s see how you support your claim of “good old American racism.”

“I give you Exhibit A: The last eight years.”

No reference to race at all.

“Exhibit B is any given Sarah Palin rally.”

Demonstrably false. Even allowing for Olbermann-level exaggeration that’s demonstrably false.

“Exhibit C would be Ed Rendell and John Murtha”

See Poll, Gallup above.

I appreciate you posting negative feedback, but what you wrote, and what the Inquirer published, is racial politics, plain and simple. [D'uh!] For people who rely on the Inquirer, Guardian, Keith Olbermann and Daily Show for information, it tickles a sweet spot. But it’s not accurate, or honest.

And I haven’t even mentioned Obama’s 20-year devotion to a racist preacher, and his black separatist church. False accusations of racism divide Americans. In this case, you’re using it to divide Americans to elect your favored politician. Congrats for practicing Good Old American Politics!

So I’ll throw the challenge out to any of his fellow travelers: What was the piece “satirizing”? The widespread call that black Americans shouldn’t vote? The widespread claim that blacks are too dumb to vote? Neither of which exist…

If you want to hide behind the “satire” defense, you have to be satirizing…something.

Give it a shot, guys.

[Sorry CJ, you got buried under a blizzard of responses. What was I satirizing? Good old fashioned American racism. Duh. -- The Ed.]