Running a typically anecdotal story on the upcoming democratic primary in Kentucky, the Chicago Tribune has thrust itself into contention for understatement of the year. Despite noting Clinton’s 25+ lead in polls, the Tribune could only bring itself to admit that the state is “leaning Clinton’s way“.

The cause of Obama’s inability to run a competitive campaign, of course, must include racism:

Like its Appalachian neighbor, Kentucky shares a large rural population, though metropolitan areas in Louisville, Lexington and the suburbs across the Ohio River from Cincinnati give Obama an opening.

Although Gershtenson said “religion and guns matter” in the Kentucky ethos, race also is a factor. “There’s no doubt that there is a significant portion of the electorate that would be very hesitant to vote for a black man,” he said.

Really? And what evidence exactly leads one to conclude such a thing with “no doubt”?

Kim Criglier, a married mother of four who runs a photography business and works the bar at the historic Brown Hotel, said she and her friends have debated the upcoming election.

A lifelong Kentuckian, who considers herself “a liberal, yet conservative,” she acknowledges resentment to strong women exists in some parts of the state, yet “they would be more apt to vote for a white woman over a black male, sad as that is.”

This is how the racism argument typically goes. The media never actually shows any empirical evidence to support their claims. Rather, they just find people who think that everyone else is racist, regurgitate their unsubstantiated opinions, and we’re just supposed to throw up our hands and say, “by golly, they must be right!”

Trackback URI |