The article quoted two men who I'm assuming, based on the article's theme of race relations, are both white.
"I'll be honest with you. Barack scares the hell out of me," he said. "He swore on the Koran."
Obama did manage to pull in many white voters, but still encountered similar sentiments from a man who refused to shake his hand at a diner in Greenwood, Ind.
"I can't stand him," the man said. "He's a Muslim. He's not even pro-American as far as I'm concerned."...
In recent weeks, pundits have cited repeatedly the fact that Clinton outdoes Obama among working-class white voters. These days, everyone wants to know if Obama can win a general election campaign against John McCain. Besides the ever-present Democratic fear that Republicans will outwit their candidate, I think the subtext here is clear: Can a black presidential candidate win in a white nation?
Hell it's not even a subtext:
"He has to convince people that he can win over working-class whites in places like Florida, Ohio and Michigan," [former Bill Clinton pollster Doug] Schoen said.
So, here's the question, Democratic voter: Do you not vote for the historic, game-changing black candidate because America might still have a lot of racists who won't elect him come November? Would we be so cowardly as to reserve our vote for a reason like that?
I can understand voting for Clinton if you truly believe that she's the better candidate or that we need a woman in the White House now more than a black or white man. But more people have voted for Obama, and he's won more delegates. The Clinton argument that Obama can't win a general election campaign is cynical, defeatist and basically racist. She argues that you shouldn't vote for the black man, however astounding his potential is, because working-class whites won't vote for him in the end. She argues that voters should fear the racism of their countrymen instead of supporting the candidate who, so far, they believe in. I find that pretty depressing.