The racism narrative in the press continues

Here we go again, this time from AP's Charles Babington:

Joyce Susick is the type of voter who might carry Barack Obama to the White House — or keep him out. A registered Democrat in a highly competitive state, she is eager to replace George W. Bush, whom she ranks among the worst presidents ever.

There's just one problem.

"I don't think our country is ready for a black president," Susick, who is white, said in an interview in the paint store where she works. "A black man is never going to win Pennsylvania."

Although the author could only find one person out of 40 interviews who wouldn't vote for Obama based on race, the article seems to suggest that any other reason given for non-support is simply a veneer hiding the real reason:

Gauging voter sentiments about race is notoriously difficult. Many voters hide their feelings from pollsters and it is possible that some do not even realize race's influence on their behavior.

In interviews with 40 Pennsylvanians across three counties that Clinton won by big margins, only one person indicated opposition to Obama simply because of his race. But several others said their neighbors might do so. Some offered objections that are familiar, and suspicious, to Obama's aides and supporters.

So if you tell a pollster you're not voting for Obama because you don't like his policy stances, you're lying to hide the fact that you're racist. Or, you're racist and just don't know it, along with your neighbors.

Surely they must have interviewed someone who objects to Obama because of issues? Of course, if you're looking for racism hard enough, you'll find it everywhere, even if you have to be creative:

Rose Iezzi, who lunched recently with two friends at a Greensburg cafe, is one. All three women are middle-aged, work for an accountant and admire Clinton. But only Iezzi took a hard stand against Obama.

"I think he's a snake oil salesman," she said. "He's a little too slick and smooth."

"He just doesn't appeal to me, and not because of race, definitely," she said in an interview in which race had not been mentioned.

Such comments are all too familiar to Richard Akers, who phoned dozens of prospective Pennsylvania voters as an Obama campaign volunteer in April. Democrats often explained their opposition to Obama with "excuses that were not rational or valid, as I saw it," said the retired bank director from Johnstown, another hotbed of Clinton support.

"To me, it was almost a code," Akers said. "'He doesn't wear a flag pin.' It seemed like code for 'He's not one of us.'"

With so much of the coverage this election season centering on race, I find it unsurprising that an interviewee might bring it up without prompting. Even folks who aren't racist don't want to be seen as racist, after all. While I agree that flag pins should not be the reason to vote for or against a candidate, I suggest that Mr. Akers, an Obama supporter, might see any reason to oppose Obama as "not rational or valid", just as many conservatives might scratch their heads and wonder why anyone would support a liberal.

In the long run, the non-stop narrative of "opposition to Obama = racism" isn't going to help the Democrats. Nobody likes being called a racist, and there's a substantial risk of backlash among folks who might otherwise be swayed by Obama's campaign.