California voters age 65 and older outnumbered African-Americans by 50% and contribued 39% more Yes on Prop 8 votes.  If voters age 65 and older had opposed Prop 8 by a slight majority of 52%, it would have failed.

So why isn’t Sullivan emphasizing the rampant homophobia in the elderly community?  Why is he singling out African-Americans as the foremost obstacle to gay rights when voters over 65 actually had 39% more influence in the passing of Prop 8?  Will Sullivan ever condemn nursing homes and Bingo tournaments the way he has repeatedly condemned black churches? …

[I]t is in no way clear that the color of one’s skin is a primary indicator of one’s social attitudes towards gays.  I’m guessing that your frequency of church attendance, your age, and where you live are all much stronger indicators than race.

Today, Nate Silver at 538– the Stephen Hawking of political math– finally weighed in with his take on the influence of black voters on Prop 8′s passage.  Reacting to the latest “Blame the blacks (and Latinos, too!)” article appearing in today’s Sacramento Bee– an article which (surprise, surprise) Andrew Sullivan immediately highlighted and praised– Silver pointed out a number of Prop 8 myths that have gone mostly unchallenged till now (all emphasis mine):

Certainly, the No on 8 folks might have done a better job of outreach to California’s black and Latino communities. But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters — the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) — voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.

Now, it’s true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance — they were helpful on balance. If California’s electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8′s passage. Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as ‘new’ voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren’t fairly close to the 50-50 mark.

Again– and this can’t be stressed enough– without the surge of new black and Latino voters, “Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.”  Silver then goes on to echo my point exactly about the stronger influence of older voters on the passage of Prop 8:

At the end of the day, Prop 8′s passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two.

My math contradicts his just a bit there.  I think voters over 65 would have had to oppose Prop 8 by a very slight majority (52%) to stop it, but I trust Nate Silver’s calculator more than mine.  He’s saying that older voters by themselves provided Prop 8′s winning margin, which is something you cannot say of any ethnic group– black, Latino, or otherwise.  Silver points out that, as older voters get cycled out of the electorate through death and replaced by 18-29-year-olds (of all races), support for marriage equality will naturally increase.

Again, my point is not to start scapegoating and demonizing older voters, as I’m sure that wasn’t the point Silver was making either.  The point is to debunk the myth that African-Americans are solely to blame for Prop 8, somehow moreso than the rest of the California electorate who also voted in favor of it.

The diverse crowd featured a large number of students, as well as a legion of members of Trinity United Church of Christ (the South Side church where Wright spoke) and a number of public figures, most notably another person whose ties to Sen. Obama got national attention: former Weather Underground member William Ayers.

The proximity of these two controversial national figures set off a chain reaction on the sub-atomic level that was felt from the Fox News studio in New York, where Sean Hannity’s head exploded then collapsed on itself live on the air, to Wasilla, Alaska, where Sarah Palin gave birth to and was immediately eaten by a silicon-based alien life form that has yet to be fully identified.

Elsewhere around the nation, observers witnessed fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger.  Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple…me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.

Another black student had this experience:

Three older men accosted my friend and shouted, “Black people did this, I hope you people are happy!” A young lesbian couple with mohawks and Obama buttons joined the shouting and said there were “very disappointed with black people” and “how could we” after the Obama victory.

In the last few days, influential gay blogger Andrew Sullivan has urged calm throughout the gay community, especially regarding the recent blaming and scapegoating of African-Americans.  Here’s Sullivan discussing the situation on Friday:

I totally understand the anger, hurt and pain now roiling the gay community and our families, especially in California. But it’s important to keep our heads. … Calm down. We are not experiencing a massive, permanent backlash. … [W]e need patience and relentlessness in explaining our lives. And how human they are. It’s not fair; we should have it all already. But we don’t. And in a democracy, that means persuasion, not fiat.

The next day, he addressed the anger even more specifically:

There is a difference between blaming African Americans and recognizing that the black community needs to be engaged more energetically on this issue.

Of course, Sullivan deserves credit for recognizing how out of control the blame-blacks-first crowd has gotten, and for speaking out against it.

However, over the past two months– well before the results of the vote were known– Sullivan frequently cited “black evangelicals” and “homophobic” African-Americans as the reason why Prop 8 could pass and the main obstacle to gay rights.

Here is Sullivan in late September discussing a study that said ”A majority of younger white evangelicals support some form of legal recognition for civil unions or marriage for same-sex couples” (all emphasis mine):

Black evangelicals are another matter. There is, alas, no ethnic community as homophobic in America as African-Americans. Which is why the ballot initiative in California could be close.

Here is Sullivan two days later defending that statement from the substantial criticism (and contradicting evidence) it received from fellow Atlantic blogger Ta-Nehisi Coates, United States of Jamerica blogger Jamelle, and The American Prospect blogger Adam Serwer, among others:

There is a tsunami of data showing that African-Americans are more opposed to gay equality than any other ethnic group. … The younger generation is not much better. Young Latinos are much less homophobic than young African-Americans. … The rampant homophobia in urban black culture also cannot be denied, as well as the role of the black church in fomenting and entrenching homophobia, even as so many black men and women have died of HIV and AIDS.

And finally, here is Sullivan, the day after the election, urging gays not to demonize the black community right before he viciously demonizes the black community:

[T]his community needs to be engaged not demonized, and we haven’t engaged enough. The black church is one of the most powerful forces fomenting homophobia in America, and has fostered attitudes that have literally killed countless gay black men. It’s time to Act Up against those elements that p.c. liberals have been too timid to confront.

So for those of you who are confused, here’s Sullivan’s argument in a nutshell: African-Americans are the single most homophobic group of people in America, they are the reason the Prop 8 vote was even close, and their attitudes on this subject have literally killed countless gays.  But, you know, we shouldn’t demonize or blame them.

Got that?

POST SCRIPT: One last point I’d like to make.  Let’s go back to that CNN exit poll that everyone is so fond of citing to “prove” the “overwhelming” influence of black homophobia on California’s Prop 8 vote.

First, it should be noted that Sullivan’s favorite polling analyst (and mine) Nate Silver at 538 wrote, on election day no less, ten reasons why everyone should ignore exit polls.  Reason number one is that exit polls have notoriously higher margins of error than regular polls, somewhere between 50% to 90% higher.  Reason number nine is that “a high-turnout election may make demographic weighting difficult.”  You mean, a high-turnout election like the record-breaking one we had Tuesday?  And you mean demographic weighting like how African-Americans– who make up a miniscule 6% of California’s population– voted?  Yeah.

But for the sake of argument, let’s pretend like that CNN exit poll is accurate and that blacks did in fact make up 10% of California’s electorate and did in fact vote in favor of Prop 8 at a rate of 70%.  According to the same poll, voters age 65 and older made up 15% of the electorate and voted in favor of Prop 8 at a rate of 61%.  For those of you who aren’t good at math, that means California voters age 65 and older outnumbered African-Americans by 50% and contribued 39% more Yes on Prop 8 votes.  If voters age 65 and older had opposed Prop 8 by a slight majority of 52%, it would have failed.

So why isn’t Sullivan emphasizing the rampant homophobia in the elderly community?  Why is he singling out African-Americans as the foremost obstacle to gay rights when voters over 65 actually had 39% more influence in the passing of Prop 8?  Will Sullivan ever condemn nursing homes and Bingo tournaments the way he has repeatedly condemned black churches?

We’re all waiting.

POST SCRIPT #2: Could Sullivan’s own personal negative experiences with African-Americans in inner-city D.C. be influencing his disproportional focus on this group?

POST SCRIPT #3: The point of this post is not to excuse black homophobia or the contribution of African-Americans to the passage of Prop 8.  It is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed, just like it needs be addressed among– again according to CNN’s exit poll– Latinos, Republicans (who made up 29% of the electorate and voted in favor of Prop 8 at a rate of 82%– which adds up to 339% more influence on passing Prop 8 than African-Americans), everyone over age 30, everyone who makes less… or more than $50,000, people who have attended college, people who have never attended college, women, and men.  Did I miss anyone?

The point of this post is to question the wildly disproportional scrutiny of African-Americans, when it is in no way clear that the color of one’s skin is a primary indicator of one’s social attitudes towards gays.  I’m guessing that your frequency of church attendance, your age, and where you live are all much stronger indicators than race.

Snerdley, do you remember we had a survey not long ago about unmarried women, women that are not in a relationship are stupider than women who are in a relationship?  Remember that?  It was not the word, but what was the word?  I use the word stupid because it worked.  Less informed, ignorant, whatever.  Get this.  “Unmarried Women Put Obama Over the Top.”  Seventy percent of support for Obama came from unmarried women.

I can hardly believe this guy’s been divorced three times.  What is wrong with you women?

A) Single out African-Americans as the sole reason why gay marriage was repealed, ignoring all other factors, including the Mormon Church who created and funded Prop 8 and the other non-black 90% of the electorate who also voted in favor of it.

B) Launch racist attacks that harken back to a time when blacks were viewed as naturally inferior to, or at least intellectually different than, other races, using words like “instinctive.”

C) Attack the Christian faith of African-Americans by invoking slavery.

Like I said, maybe it’s just me, but that actually seems like the stupidest, most counterproductive way anyone could possibly react to Tuesday’s result.  I understand a lot of people in the gay and liberal communities are angry right now, and rightfully so.  But to react by throwing verbal trash cans through the windows of black churches and communities is not the answer at all.

Earlier today, a Daily Kos contributor, who happens to be both black and gay, wrote a fascinating post on the reasons why people need to stop scapegoating the black community for Prop 8.  The two best reasons:

– It isn’t even clear that the exit polls people are using to ”prove” overwhelming black support of Prop 8 (and by proxy, black homophobia) are accurate.  African-Americans made up just 10% of California’s electorate on Tuesday– compared to 63% white, 18% Latino.  With CNN’s tiny sample size of only 224 African-Americans throughout the entire state, the figure showing 70% of African-Americans supporting Prop 8 could easily be off by a very large percentage, depending on where in California those selected African-Americans lived.  A swing of just 22 black voters in that statewide sample– easily possible if too much of your sample is coming from conservative inland communities– changes the support from 70% to 60%.

– Even if African-Americans had opposed Prop 8 at the same percentage as whites, it wouldn’t have made a difference.  There was just too much support for it from the rest of the non-black electorate.  For every one black voter who voted in favor of Prop 8, there were six white and Latino voters who did the same.  So why– other than racism and frustration– single out the black voter for blame?

If gays and liberals want to find someone to blame for the passage of Proposition 8, there are a few much better options: the Mormon Church, as I mentioned; San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome, whose arrogant pro-gay-marriage rants starred in several Yes on 8 commercials, and who blew open the issue of gay marriage being taught in schools by foolishly officiating a gay wedding in front of a class of first-graders; Barack Obama, who opposed Prop 8, but made (probably wisely for his campaign) no real effort to make that fact known to the 61% of Californians who voted for him.

And of course, there’s the gay and liberal communities themselves, who refused to put a human face on the issue or an actual gay couple in any of their ads.  In fact, most No on 8 ads didn’t even use the word “gay” or any variation of it.  It was as if Prop 8 was a civil rights issue, a separation of church and state issue, a marriage issue, but definitely not a “gay” or ”homosexual” issue.  But as long as gay marriage supporters continue operating in this mode of subconscious shame, I suspect gay marriage opponents will continue to feel vindicated in their belief that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of.

Lastly, the gay and liberal community needs to realize that the black community is operating at unprecedented levels of goodwill and open-mindedness right now.  A lot of African-Americans got their minds changed dramatically on Tuesday night about whites, racism, and their place in America.  So rather than using this time to attack that community, now is probably more like the perfect time to begin positive outreach and education efforts.  On the other hand, if these attacks continue, they will almost certainly lead to a knee-jerk defensiveness throughout a black community that is accustomed to being disproportionately and unfairly blamed for so many other issues– a wound that could take years to heal.  And the absolute last thing gay marriage supporters need to be doing right now is making more enemies.

– Does Barack Obama regret his decision to take Sasha trick-or-treating yesterday (which actually ate up his whole day because he campaigned in the relatively safe Iowa and the relatively unimportant Indiana to stay close to Chicago)?  Or his campaign’s decision to throw resources into Arizona pretty much for no other reason than to show up McCain?

– Does it disenfranchise an entire generation of Democrat-leaning voters who will likely never want to vote again after working so hard and getting their hopes up so high?  How badly would the participation of black voters drop in the next election?  How long would it take Democrats to rebuild a coalition like that again?

– Does FiveThirtyEight go out of business?  After all, Nate Silver currently has McCain at a 2.8% chance to win the election.  2.8% isn’t zero percent, but if McCain wins, he’s gonna have a lot of splainin’ to do.  In fact, with no polls to crunch from now till the 2010 midterms, he’d probably have to spend the next year and a half laying out to his readers exactly what went wrong.  And it would be hard to get that credibility back.  It would no longer be “the website FiveThirtyEight,” but instead ”the website FiveThirtyEight, who despite a lot of fancy number crunching, famously got the 2008 election wrong.”

– Does Obama run in 2012?  Obviously, a lot of people would blame his loss on race.  With pretty much everything that matters overwhelmingly favoring Democrats this year, there wouldn’t be too many other explanations.  With that said, how long would it be before either major party, Democrat or Republican, nominates another non-white person for president?  Would Hillary have a lock on 2012 or at that point would Democrats be hesistant to nominate a woman as well?

– Does the way Republicans essentially snuck Sarah Palin into the White House change the rules of transparency in future elections?  Why should any candidate release health records or give press conferences if Palin never got punished by voters for not doing those things?  Does Andrew Sullivan’s head explode?

– Does the enormous disparity between the final polls and early voting numbers (which both overwhelmingly favor Obama) and the ultimate election result undermine America’s confidence in its democratic process?  Would the stories of electronic voting machine malfunctions and discarded voter registrations balloon into a nationwide conspiracy hunt?

– Do I get up and go to work the next day?  Does anyone?

The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s researchers found that John McCain, over the six weeks since the Republican convention, got four times as many negative stories as positive ones. The study found six out of 10 McCain stories were negative.

What’s more, Obama had more than twice as many positive stories (36 percent) as McCain — and just half the percentage of negative (29 percent).

You call that balanced?

Here’s the chart of media bias they’re citing:

Politico, almost with a sense of shame and needing to explain themselves, then goes to great lengths to lay out and analyze the possible reasons for this.  But I’ll save you five minutes. Here’s the short and simple reason why the media is biased against McCain:

Because his campaign sucks. And both he and Sarah Palin are borderline awful presidential candidates– a fact, I’m guessing, that many Republicans will heartily agree with on November 5th.

The truth is the McCain campaign has had two really good days since August: the day they announced Palin for VP and the day Palin gave her RNC speech. Every day other than those two has varied between mediocre and disasterous. There just hasn’t been that much good news to report.

McCain’s two-week response to the economic crisis was a mess, Palin’s train wreck interviews have dominated discussion for days at a time, they both somehow managed to lose every single post-debate poll and focus group that I saw, they’ve been down in the national polls almost every single day (the state-by-state electoral college situation is even worse for them), their campaign took on a particularly ugly negative focus for a solid three weeks which elicited some likewise ugly responses from supporters, and Elizabeth Hasselbeck on the stump is like a shrill, annoying, spoiled, uninspiring, bit….. ter version of Oprah. Meanwhile, Obama is attracting record crowds, raising unprecedented funds, drawing significant support from well-known conservatives, running one of the smoothest campaigns ever, and enjoying a steady near-double-digit lead in the polls.

I bet if you did a chart of media bias last year, comparing coverage of the New England Patriots (pre-Super Bowl collapse) versus the Oakland Raiders, it’d look similar to that picture above. Winners get positive fluff pieces– like the humanitarian work of Randy Moss, the inspiration of Tedy Bruschi’s comeback, and the hotness of Tom Brady’s girlfriend– while losers get in-depth analysis of what’s going wrong, who said what behind whose back, and who needs to be or is about to be fired. Right now, the Obama campaign is the 2007 Patriots. Even if they manage to blow the Super Bowl– which would no doubt lead to a swift, 180-degree media backlash– it doesn’t matter. ‘Cause the Raiders didn’t even make the playoffs.

Shortly thereafter, exactly one-third of the cable news channels and ten percent of the political blogosphere was buzzing over this devastating development for the Obama campaign a mere seven days before the election:

John Moody, the Executive VP of Fox News, made the following statement on the importance of this new evidence and why the Fox News Channel will now replace all programming with a 24-hour-a-day feed of this photo:

If this photo is verified, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are capitalists, but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee.

If the photo turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to epic failure.

–Aren’t you embarrassed by the blatant attempts to register phony voters by ACORN, an organization that Barack Obama has been tied to in the past?

–Sen. Obama famously told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to spread his wealth around. Gallup polls show 84% of Americans prefer government focus on improving financial conditions and creating more jobs in the U.S. as opposed to taking steps to distributing wealth. Isn’t Sen. Obama’s statement a potentially crushing political blunder?

–You may recognize this famous quote: “From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs.” That’s from Karl Marx. How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?

–Now you recently said, “Mark my words. It won’t be six months before the world tests Barack Obama.” But what worries many people is your caveat asking them to stand with him because it won’t be apparent that he got it right. Are you forewarning the American people that something might not get done and that America’s days as the world’s leader might be over?

–Getting back to the “spreading the wealth” question, what do you say to the people who are concerned that Barack Obama will want to turn America into a socialist country much like Sweden?

The question on Obama being a Marxist led Biden to remark, “Are you joking?  Is this a joke?  Is that a real question?” Watch for yourself:

West later defended her interview to the Orlando Sentinel, saying she simply asked “some pointed questions … that need to be asked.”

But what’s funny about West’s interview is that it’s a perfect example of the conservative movement’s lack of faith in its own principles. Rather than defend conservatism in this election, they’ve devolved into a platform of name calling and guilt-by-distant-association scare tactics.

American presidents have been raising and lowering taxes for centuries. But suddenly, because Barack Obama wants to lower taxes on the struggling middle class and return the tax rate on the rich to what it was under the Clinton administration, he’s a Marxist who wants to turn America into Sweden. It’s completely ridiculous.

If conservative principles work, defend them. Explain how the Bush administration mangled them, and how they would be implemented properly under a McCain administration. But even John McCain won’t do this. When the financial crisis hit, the man who in the Republican primaries bragged about his record of deregulation and his faith in the free markets suddenly became the foremost advocate for strict regulation, the guy who had been warning us all along this would happen. If deregulation and free market faith works, defend it. Say Bush and Greenspan screwed it up, and defend it. Don’t suddenly put on a fiscal liberal hat and hope nobody notices you changed teams.

A big reason why the Republicans are about to get trounced in this election is because of their fundamental dishonesty with the American people. They’ve done almost nothing to take responsibility or adequately explain why so many principles of conservatism have failed so disasterously over the past eight years. They have shunned serious analysis and conversation for tricks and political games.

The entire Republican primary season should have been focused on what went wrong under Bush and which candidate was best equipped to fix– and change– conservatism, to bring it into the 21st century. But instead, they all dutifully bowed to Reagan/Bush government, and obediently bent over for the Republican Party’s special interest groups. Which is why McCain now has no ideas to run on, no solutions, and would much rather talk about Bill Ayers and ACORN than the middle class– you know, those 200 million Americans McCain never once mentioned during the three debates.

And the same thing goes for the Sean Hannitys and Barbara Wests out there, who think name calling and fearmongering equate to journalism. If you really believe Obama’s plan to lower taxes on the middle class will be harmful to the American economy, talk about it. Show us the numbers. Just calling it “socialism” and “Marxism” is lazy, counterproductive, fundamentally dishonest, and a complete failure of duty by the conservative media.

It’s exactly why the American people are looking at the Republican Party right now like, “Are you joking? Is this a joke?”

UPDATE: Apparently, conservative bloggers are overjoyed by West’s line of questioning. Finally, somebody’s asking the tough questions! LOL! The fact that this interview is their idea of what Americans care about shows how badly out of touch and mildly delusional conservatives have become this year.

Americans have lost $2 billion trillion in stock value in the last month alone two years. That’s money that many retirees and near-retirees were counting on to live. But thank God someone’s finally hammering Joe Biden on Marxism! Once again, I repeat…….

Are you joking? Is this a joke?

First, Greg Sargent at TPM broke the story yesterday that the McCain campaign was directly involved in fabricating details of Ashley Todd’s fake robbery and assault story: 

John McCain’s Pennsylvania communications director told reporters in the state an incendiary version of the hoax story about the attack on a McCain volunteer well before the facts of the case were known or established — and even told reporters outright that the “B” carved into the victim’s cheek stood for “Barack,” according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions.

John Verrilli, the news director for KDKA in Pittsburgh, told TPM Election Central that McCain’s Pennsylvania campaign communications director gave one of his reporters a detailed version of the attack that included a claim that the alleged attacker said, “You’re with the McCain campaign? I’m going to teach you a lesson.”

But it gets even worse.  Somehow.  Someway.  It gets… even… worse.

Apparently, Ashley Todd is just the latest individual the McCain campaign failed to vet before shining the national spotlight on them.  Because it turns out that not only was Todd’s story a complete hoax, but she also suffers from a history of mental illness:

She will be housed in a mental health unit at the county jail for her safety and because of “her not insignificant mental health issues,” prosecutor Mark Tranquilli said.

So the McCain campaign put their reputation, their entire Pennsylvania campaign– and by default, their entire national campaign– on the line to exploit and embellish the story of a mentally ill woman who, 24 hours later, has been institutionalized for her own safety.

I actually lived in Pittsburgh up until three years ago, so I have a guess as to how this story might play out both nationally and locally.  First of all, on the national front, of course Fox News is going to take the bait.  In fact, they already have.  This is a screenshot of their front page at this very moment:

The lede of Fox News’s story is that there are “unanswered questions” surrounding this woman’s version of what happened. This is just an excuse for them to drag it out and discuss a story that otherwise has no legs over several days. “Why is the ‘B’ on her face drawn backwards? Why are the scratches so light? Why did she refuse medical treatment on the scene? Why are there other inconsistencies in her story? Was the attack truly politically motivated? What exactly did the man say?”Tomorrow, we’ll find out a little more from the police, then we’ll discuss that, then we’ll get an interview with the woman and discuss that. 11 days before the election day, this story will probably replace Bill Ayers as the most pressing issue of our time– at least on Fox News. Keep in mind though, that I’ve seen a few comments from liberals questioning the woman’s story as well. You’re doing your side no favors. Just offer your sincere well wishes to the woman and move on. If there really are inconsistencies in her story, or if she’s just plain making it up, then leave it for the police to figure it out. This really isn’t the time for citizen journalism.

The thing is though, this story really has nothing to do with politics or race.  It’s about an out-of-town lady who walked into the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time and ran into a crazy person.  In Pittsburgh, you can just as easily get assaulted for having a Cleveland Browns bumper sticker on your car. Also, my sense is that if crime was a major issue in this election, the way it was in 1988, this story could have really caught fire nationally– even among the legitimate newsrooms. As it is, crime really hasn’t sparked any discussion at all in this election, other than in a Giuliani campaign that found little interest from actual voters.

Which brings me to how this story might play out locally. It matters because Pittsburgh happens to be in Pennsylvania, which happens to be a must-win state for John McCain and a really-kind-of-need-this-one state for Barack Obama. If Obama can come anywhere close to splitting the vote in Pittsburgh, his margins in Philadelphia will carry him over the top. If he gets pummeled in Western Pennsylvania, it’s gonna be close. Too close. This story is Pennsylvania’s October surprise.

In Pittsburgh, here’s how this thing could play out and really spiral out of control. First of all, I wrote back in the primaries about how Pittsburgh is one of the more segregated cities in America and how that feeds into a simmering racial tension. Of course, any report in Pittsburgh of a black man assaulting a white woman has a good chance of making the local news. A story getting this kind of national attention will lead the news, maybe for days.

And then the inevitable happens. Some local radio shock jock (talk radio is big in Pittsburgh) will make a racially insensitive commentary on the subject, something like, “See! If Obama wins this election, black people in this country are going to start feeling like they can do whatever they want!” And that will lead to a furious black community calling in to dispute, and a white community that’s split over the merits of the argument, but will feel decidedly uncomfortable with all the black anger– no matter how legitimate– on their radio. Then people will start calling for the shock jock to be fired, and that will set off another round of discussion, this time about a white man losing his job because of black people.

So while this story might fizzle out nationally, it could have some serious legs in Western Pennsylvania. If a talk radio war breaks out over the next week or so, if it spills over into the local news or the water coolers, if you get a lot of angry black folks and a lot of uneasy white folks in Pittsburgh, it will not bode well for Democrats. That is of course, unless the Steelers lose Sunday. Then this whole thing is on page A-29.

UPDATE: John McCain himself called the woman to offer his well wishes. It’s a nice gesture; she did after all volunteer for his campaign. But he’ll have to be careful not to be seen pushing this story. Leave that for Drudge and Fox News. Oh, and with Pennsylvania turning into something of a last stand for McCain, you can bet his staff there will be doing everything they can to throw fuel on this fire.

UPDATE #2: Wow!  OCTOBER SURPRISE!

Pittsburgh Police is now reporting that Ashley Todd has confessed to making up the story.  And just like that, all the politics of this swings in the exact opposite direction.  Now the story is no longer about out of control (and don’t forget, black!) Obama supporters, it’s about one more example– the most egregious example so far– of the absolute insanity on the McCain side.  I think the local chatter that will surround this story for the next week pushes Pennsylvania firmly into the Obama camp, even moreso than it was already.  Western Pennsylvania may be racially… um, tense, but nobody on either side wants to be associated with stuff like this.

Make no mistake, Ashley Todd’s story is the worst instance of race-baiting since the Duke lacrosse “victim.”  A lot of the details of this story looked fishy to me from the jump: The “B” scratched lightly– and backwards– in her face; the fact that she posted pictures of herself immediately to her MySpace page (what victim of a brutal assault like that goes straight to MySpace that same night?); her suspiciously non-swollen “black eye”; the appearance in her story by the famous “unidentified black male” (even The Sopranos did an episode about that guy); the suspect political quotes by her supposed attacker (“You are going to be a Barack supporter!”); and then there was this quote on Todd’s Myspace page:

Lying is the most fun a girl can have without taking her cloths [sic] off, but its [sic] better if you do.

Maybe I should have been more openly skeptical, but blame an overabundance of caution on my part for not wanting to attack the story of a potential assault victim, especially a woman, until all the facts were in.  But, yeah, Ashley Todd is a complete nutcase.  Throw her in jail.  Lying about a hate crime should be a hate crime.

The other person to blame here is Matt Drudge, who took an apparent local mugging and successfully (to his now regret) turned it into a national political firestorm.  There’s no reason– other than race-baiting– as to why this story should have been headlining the Drudge Report all day yesterday, and there’s no reason why it should have been splashed across the front page of the Fox News website.  And trust me, Fox was ready to push this thing for all it was worth.  Ashley Todd’s mugger was about to become the new Willie Horton.

Here’s John Moody, the Executive VP of Fox News, talking about the all-consuming importance of this story (aka why we must report on this night and day until November 4):

If Ms. Todd’s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator  Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee.

What connection at all does this mugger have to Barack Obama?  How does a random act of violence in Pittsburgh say anything about his candidacy?  Two words: Race. Baiting.  But unfortunately– for Fox News– Mr. Moody then continued in a moment of perhaps unintentional candor:

If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting.

Actually, it’s Drudge and Fox News who are forever linked to race-baiting.  I disagree completely that this incident reflects in any way on John McCain.  He’s just as innocent here as Obama.  It’s one thing for McCain and Palin to work their supporters up into a jingoistic frenzy about terrorists and patriotism, and then have a number of those supporters get out of control.  It’s another thing for a crazy person, Ashley Todd, to take it upon herself to “help” the campaign by faking an armed robbery.  I can’t blame McCain one bit for this; I don’t even blame them for calling her last night to offer well wishes.  It was the right thing to do.

But I do agree with Moody that McCain’s quest for the presidency is now over.  It was over three weeks ago.  But the blowback from this October surprise proves that McCain is cursed.  Even when he catches what seems to be a break, perhaps a little light at the end of the tunnel, it turns out to be a train barreling down the tracks to run him over.  He can’t win.  Western Pennsylvania is now out of reach, which means Pennsylvania is out of reach.

And Ashley Todd, the idealistic young volunteer who was just trying to do her part, will forever be known as the woman who mugged and assaulted John McCain’s campaign.

It’s not clear how many of these toddlers are registered to vote or how well Nickelodeon screened participants for party bias, but if this trend continues over the next two weeks, it means John McCain is the next President of the United States.  Or the next Principal of High School Musical 4.

It seems to me if we had the tools to measure we’d find that Barack Obama gets two votes because he’s black for every one he loses because he’s black because so much of this country is so eager, a, to feel good about itself by doing this, but more than that to put paid to the whole Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson game of political rhetoric.

Would Colin Powell be endorsing Barack Obama if he were a white liberal Democrat? … General Powell said it would be electrifying if we elected an African-American, and it is naive to suggest it had nothing at all to do with his decision.

So again, I ask to the Rush Limbaughs, George Wills, and Pat Buchanans of the world, why didn’t the discussion immediately turn to race when any of those white military officers endorsed the white candidate for president? And why is your reaction to the Colin Powell endorsement anything less than racism?

Rush Limbaugh said Colin Powell’s decision to get behind Barack Obama appeared to be very much tied to Obama’s status as the first African-American with a chance to become president.

“Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race,” Limbaugh wrote in an e-mail. “OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I’ll let you know what I come up with.”

For those who can’t read between the lines, Limbaugh’s assertion here is pretty clear: Colin Powell only endorsed Barack Obama because they’re both black.

But if this is true, then what is Limbaugh’s excuse for why the conservative Chicago Tribune endorsed Obama– the first endorsement of a Democratic candidate in its 161-year history?  And what is Limbaugh’s excuse for the Los Angeles Times, who gave Obama its first presidential endorsement since 1972, and also its first endorsement ever of a Democratic candidate?  And what is Limbaugh’s excuse for why the rigidly Republican News-Register in Oregon wrote a strong endorsement for Obama that knocked New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof off his feet, including the following:

Only one candidate stands for change in this year’s presidential race — Barack Obama. Obama’s intellect, temperament and ability to inspire are precisely what we need after a disastrous eight years under George W. Bush.

What did Limbaugh have to say about the other major Republican figures who have endorsed Obama: Lincoln Chafee, Jim Leach, Susan Eisenhower, Ed Koch?

But most importantly, what did Limbaugh have to say when another prominent Republican military man, retired four-star Air Force General Tony McPeak endorsed Obama?  Did Limbaugh sarcastically promise to “find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed”?  Did Limbaugh question McPeak’s endorsement on the grounds of race?  No.  And for one simple reason: McPeak is white, Powell is black.

If this isn’t racism, then the word has no meaning.

Of course, this isn’t the first time Limbaugh has played the race card when it comes to the success of a black man.  As you may remember, five years ago Limbaugh was forced to resign from ESPN after igniting a firestorm of controversy with this statement about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb:

I don’t think he’s been that good from the get-go.  I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL.  I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.  They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well.  I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve.   The defense carried this team.

This was despite the fact that McNabb at that point, only two full seasons into his career, was a two-time Pro Bowl quarterback, who in 2000 finished second in league MVP voting and in 2001 led his team to the NFC championship game.  According to Limbaugh, McNabb’s success, like Obama’s, was due to race.

[poll=2]