Jon Stewart's A block was laugh out loud funny last night. The Chris Matthews/Terry McAuliffe bit (6 minutes in) is a must-see if you missed it. But the portion that got me thinking was the part about the media coverage of the West Virginia primary results. Stewart highlights the dance-around-it dance describing why Clinton came out on top:
"her working class base" "working class whites" "white voters earning less than $50,000" "blue collar whites" "white regular people" "white rural Americans"
Stewart's report also showed soundbites from three West Virginian women who possibly unknowingly outed themselves as racist and grossly misinformed.
Why is it we can't just call it like it is? White, uneducated, poor voters in West Virginia don't identify with the suburban-raised, Wellesley and Yale Law educated former First Lady and Senator from "the big city." A majority voted for Clinton because she's white. Or to be even more blunt, because she's not black.
I know anchors, reporters, and pundits can't come right out and say it - as Stewart spent 5 minutes pointing out - but I don't know why. Racism is shameful and the behavior of ignorant, close-minded people. We may be hesitant to label someone a racist, but if someone won't vote for a black man because he's black, then guess what? Here's your nametag, Princess Bigot.
I actually think pretending otherwise is a problem. Maybe if people didn't think it was acceptable to hate based on race, we'd spread a little good. Ignoring the issue isn't going to make it disappear.
Euphemisms only perpetuate the myth that we're somehow past the ugly, naked truth. And the results from Tuesday's primary - where many poor, uneducated, white folks voted for the millionaire white woman because they saw no viable alternative - prove we are buried deeper in the racist muck than anyone in the media cares - or dares - to admit.
Why has it become taboo to tell it like it is? Who are we afraid of offending? The offensive? I say if someone's that ignorant in the year 2008, she's earned it.
