Cafferty figured only racists would vote against Obama

On Sept. 16, 2008, CNN’s Jack Cafferty thought the differences between Sen. John McCain and then-Sen. Barack Obama were so clear, the only reason the election could be so close was racism. Is Cafferty a racist since he just went off on Obama for breaking promises we knew he would not keep?

Of course not, but in Cafferty’s world, he seems to be able to make the jump.

Cafferty blew his stack today, all bothered about President Obama breaking the “we’ll broadcast everything on CSPAN” comment, and the fact House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are hiding from the public as they do a mash-up of the health care bill outside of public view, bypassing the normal Congressional workflow.

Here’s Cafferty’s full post on his CNN Political Ticker blog entry.

Race is arguably the biggest issue in this election, and it’s one that nobody’s talking about.

The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn’t be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense…unless it’s race.

You. Are. An. Idiot.

It has nothing to do with race you fool. It’s conservative versus liberal policies. But everything has to be about race to these clowns. Now, if Cafferty stated McCain and Obama were basically the same (professional politicians …) that may be different, but he was clear … it was race to him.

Here is the video blow-up, courtesy Hot Air, Instapundit, Gateway Pundit and the Anchoress. (If the video link is busted, let me know in the comments – can not validate it is working from my location.)

1 reply
  1. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    The way I see it, the real racists voted for Obama.  Given his razor thin resume, suppression of his college records, and associations with "people who do not wish America well", to put it in the vernacular of the current regime, what other reason could you have to vote for him?  People were enamored of the idea of voting for the first black (partly, anyway) president, be it of some diversity drive or liberal white guilt, and subsequently ignored the glaring holes and even more glaring warning signs in his history.

     

    If race is the only reason they voted for him, then race is the only reason they can see to be against him.  They are projecting their own racist motives on the rest of us.  It is reflexive for liberals, and specious on its face.

Comments are closed.