What I hate about articles like this is that they say a candidate said something, but they don't give the quote. It's sloppy journalism. Why should I believe how some Australian website characterized what Obama said, if they can't even provide the quote of him saying it? It's worse than a soundbite taken out of context, because it doesn't even pretend to give the candidate's actual words. Why not just print what he said and let me decide what it means, rather than say what they think it means and not give the words. It's lazy and sloppy, and it's the same thing people do when they are lying about what candidate stands for. Not saying they are lying --- just saying that's how it is done. Now we get everyone in this thread piling in on this issue about how if that's what Obama thinks, then Obama is playing the race card. What a load of crap. Personally, I'd like to see a quote in context before I just accept how the Australian Broadcasting Company characterized his comments. They could be saying anything.

So, sloppy journalism aside. I do think race will be an issue in this election. Sad but true. And if either side thinks they can get some traction with a racially charged issue, but do it in a way they can deny racism, I expect they will try to do it. The one example that immediately comes to mind is the Willie Horton ads agaisnt Dukakis years ago. That ad was not overtly racist --- it was about a furlough program. But it played on racist fears because the ad was about a very scary looking black man who was released on furlough and either raped or murdered a white woman. There are a million ways to bring race into the campaign without overtly saying "Don't vote for the guy because he is black" --- of course no one would be that stupid. Fortunately I think MOST people are beyond that kind of thinking now.