Jimmy Carter came out today saying that the backlash against Obama is largely because of anti-black sentiment among whites.

But when it comes to interpreting all racial events, you have to simulate the events with the races switched.

So if we had a white Democratic president, like Hilary Clinton, and given our economic situation, and the probable policies (bailouts etc.), the protests would be much worse! Well, the thing is Hillary wouldn't be pushing healthcare reform, but assuming she was, she would face worse.

Now, what if it wasn't Hilary though. What if it was John Edwards pushing healthcare reform in an economic downturn, he'd probably face protests, but not as hard as Hilary. But I attribute that to the already pre-existing hatred toward Hilary. Maybe it's because she's a woman?

You know what I think it is, I think because she's a woman and because Obama's black, many Americans (both left and right) have started out skeptical of them, and some of those people, through a confirmation bias and because they only listen to conservative talk radio, have increased their intensity of hatred and haven't revised their opinions.

So, I believe that Obama being black and Clinton being a woman probably just increases the polarity of the divisiveness, but I don't think people who dislike Obama or Hilary would dislike Edwards any less. Rather, they just have more force, along the lines of, "see, I told you we shouldn't have elected a black (or female) president."

But then, you have to consider what if John Edwards' infidelities surfaced after the election. Would he get Bill Clintonized? Probably, and he'd get railroaded as much as Obama is getting now.

So, in summary, I wouldn't think it fair to say that people hate Obama because he's black. And you'd want to be especially careful saying something like that because the portion of white conservatives who are honest-to-god non-racists take major offense to that accusation. So, I'd agree with Michael Savage, that Carter's statements incite more racial enmity.