Replies

You, too, totally misread the piece. You're focussed on skin color, precisely the thing the author is excoriating.

It wasn't about trading one black for another. The issues in this race really mattered for a change.

How'd you miss that after reading it? Or did you read it thoroughly?

It wasn't about trading one black for another. The issues in this race really mattered for a change.

Exactly. McKinney is black, Majette is black, last I looked the leading GOP candidate in that district is black.

Much as McKinney and her followers would like it to be, this isn't a race thing - it's a beliefs thing.

Yes, I read the whole thing. And yes the writer does discuss the changing of the black electorate.

But the title of the article is: "Bitter Truth For Black Politicians In McKinney Defeat".

How is this a bitter truth for conservative black politicians?

It doesn't say Bitter Truth for Liberal or "Traditional" Black Politicians which it should have said it the writer was truthful. So the author throws race in the readers face from the get go.

rdb3 said "It wasn't about trading one black for another. The issues in this race really mattered for a change.". Are you really saying if a white person had run on the same issues in place of the black person who won that the white person would have won as well?

I think had the alternative to McKenney not been black McKenney would have won.

And lastly about me "only seeing skin color" in this article. The author's article is pointedly entirely about black people. How is it you expect me to miss that fact?

And no, I'm not angry... I just woke up... ;-)