RW, as entertaining as your non-sequiturs always are, I feel compelled to point your attention to the fact that the foregoing argument has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of any particular candidate per se, but rather with certain methods and emphases in covering the campaign. I know I'm waiting anxiously, and I'll bet everybody else is too, to hear your defense of drawing conclusions about the state of a man's intellectual and emotional development from the fact that he had orange juice instead of coffee. Once. (No, not every characterological attack on Obama is racist, though many are; some are just dumb.) 

Incidentally, I know interpreting English words connected syntactically into larger grammatical structures is always a difficult and dangerous thing, but you might observe, as Naftali managed to, that in this post I took a substantive position against Obama. I'm tempted to provide you with links to all the many occasions at Jewcy and elsewhere in which I've directly and harshly criticized Obama, but I feel it would be cruel to deprive you of your harmless fantasy.

As for your decidedly not harmless fantasy that many of the tactics the Clinton campaign, the GOP, and a collection of hack journalists are employing against Obama are not (clearly and flagrantly) designed to stoke racist resentment, I'm afraid I'll spare no effort to deprive you of that.