Kathleen Parker's Continued Embrace of Race-Baiting

It's good that we have Kathleen Parker around to remind us of the fine distinction between racism and race-baiting. As we all know, Obama's race makes it more difficult to frame attacks on him despite his shortage of (as Parker puts it) "blood equity". The shame, apparently, is that the proponents of the ad aren't doing something more respectable, like offering insipid arguments that question the President's testosterone levels or imply that he's a (pussy) cat.

Parker argues,

Raising Wright now would have been a serious miscalculation and would have been interpreted as attempting to inspire racial animus. But it is unfair to smear Davis as a racist, as some have suggested. He obviously created a proposal based on his sense that this would appeal to Ricketts, who said upon viewing the rejected ­McCain ad: “If the nation had seen that ad, they’d never have elected Barack Obama.”

By the same token, a politician who cynically embraced the Republican "Southern Strategy" cannot be assumed to be racist by virtue of his actions. It's all but a given that many of them were cynical opportunists. Parker argues, Parker's editorial neatly elides any reference to the proposal's description of the President. Charles Blow is not as charitable:

“The metrosexual black Abe Lincoln has emerged as a hyper-partisan, hyper-liberal, elitist politician with more than a bit of the trimmer in him.”...

The proposal was racially charged, and its authors knew it. So they called for the enlistment of “an extremely literate, conservative African-American” as a spokesman to defend it. This should raise the hackles of black Republicans. There is a base that sees them as able to do racial damage while protecting the party from racial blame.

Given her own history of attacks on the President's masculinity, Parker can be presumed to be fully on board with trying to characterize him as a metrosexual. I am not sure if the President's blood is "full" enough, though, for the Lincoln comparison - we can only hope Parker shares her thoughts on that point. But here's the thing: if this isn't about race and race-baiting, what's the word "black" doing in there?

Parker whines,

The leaking of the document and the prominent display of the story have been a boon to Obama. They provided yet another welcome distraction, as well as a helpful fundraising tool, and smeared Romney by association.

If Romney is correct, the hurt from the leak of the plan is far less than that which he would have suffered from its execution. And as for guilt by association, although you and I might hesitate to make that argument, didn't Parker just get through telling us that in her view it's fair game?