79% of the vote should be very incouraging to people that some truly want to be whole and free of bigotry. This extreme win gives us many much hope and shows that there are many who are genuinely sick and tired, and fed up with all the ignorance concerning race and religion.

I’m happy for Steve Cohen, he is an extremely considerate and decent honorable man. What a honorable human being to be able to show such respect for the family, grave and remains of a supposedly founder of the KKK. That is an extreme high road. A very exceptional thing fort any Jewish person or African American to be able to feel.

“Incumbant?” Is there anyone left at the Post who can spell?

Eddie - In your previous post about this race, you said the following:

> Tinker has appealed directly to the African American community
> to support her candidacy. Nothing wrong with that.

I asked why you felt there was nothing wrong with than, when clearly a white candidate in this race appealing to the white community would be broadly condemned. You never answered, despite the fact that it touched off a debate that now approaches two dozen posts. I’d still like to hear from you on this.

Good for him.

Well, this is strange. Pam Maples told me that Congressional incumbents winning in their districts isn’t news. Whatever.

Nick -
For me it was not her “appeal” to the African-American community that was the problem - it was the pure anti-Semitism in the flyer attributed to her supporter that was.

But anytime someone has to appeal to their “base” on purely racial or ethnic lines, then that tells me they have a very weak argument, and are counting on “those of like mind” to vote for them. (Whew, got all the way through that and did not use the term “racism” — oops!)

RHarnack - I understand your point, and I agree - a campaign focusing on race is a weak appeal. The problem is, it is also an effective one in many cases.

In any case, my question to Mr. Roth wasn’t about her campaign, but about his comment about it. In his last post, Mr. Roth said there was nothing wrong with a black candidate making a racially based appeal to black voters. What I want to know is, why does he said “nothing wrong with that” when clearly the same would not be said of a white candidate making a racial appeal to the white community.

I’ve asked Mr. Roth this question twice, in his original post, and in this related one. His silence here speaks volumes. Unfortunately, many on the left are incapable of discerning bigotry amongst minorities, no matter how quick they are to judge the motives of a white speaker.

Sorry, Nick, I didn’t answer your question because I thought it was rhetorical. I did not see it as serious.

To me the answer is obvious and commonsensical, not cynical and hypocritical as you imply:

To put it gently, the interests of minority or disempowered groups have not always been well represented in our political system. This has not proven to be a problem for the white majority, and white candidates who campaign by making racial appeals to white voters by and large have been hateful racists — that is the reality.

I see nothing wrong with Black or Hispanic or Asian or Jewish or Mormon or female candidates making the case that they have special insight into and thus can well represent a heretofore not well represented segment of community.

The polity is not always buying, as evidently was the case in Tennessee’s 9th Congressional District.

And if the case is made in ways that denigrate another group — including by a minority candidate — well, there is something wrong with that!

E Pluribus Unum appears on the Great Seal of the United States, and means “from many, one.”

Let’s not forget the “from many” part, Nick.