Nope. Imo, he was treated worse.
Hat tip: BlackFive
–State Senator, Louise Lucas
There’s nothing unique to any disrespect shown to the current president. Certainly it isn’t the color of President Obama’s skin that drives the political opposition to his presidency. Yet so many of his supporters can’t seem to fathom how their Dear Leader (see what I just did there?) can be so disrespected. It certainly perplexes Obama sycophants like Chris Matthews.
But how, then, could anyone explain the reception to John Kerry’s candidacy in 2004, when the Massachusetts patrician fared worse with white voters than did the black kid from Hawaii in his historic campaign four years later?
Kerry, indeed, experienced much the same pattern across ethnic lines as all Democrats do, with big majorities among communities of color—88 percent of blacks, 56 percent of Asians—and a pathetic showing among the white majority, losing that group by 17 points to George W. Bush, five points more than Obama’s margin of white rejection in 2008. Do liberal true believers suggest that racist voters harbored some secret fear that John Forbes Kerry was African-American?
The racism-explains-it-all theory ignores the true nature of Obama’s resounding victory in 2008, which suggests strongly that his racial identity worked to his advantage, not to his detriment. Among white voters, he performed at least as well as other recent Democratic candidates, even drawing four points more, 43 to 39 percent, than good ol’ boy Bill Clinton did his three-way race in 1992. But it was among blacks, Latinos, and Asians that Obama vastly outperformed his Democratic predecessors, besting their performance by about 10 points with each ethnic group and building enough of a margin to win the presidency. In other words, Obama’s status as a barrier-busting nominee and a racial outsider made him no less popular among whites and considerably more popular among everyone else.
Remember when Jonathan Chait criticized Bush for exercising too much?
What’s your most memorable BDS moment?