Election down to 'racism' vs 'agism'?
The headline said it all. "Can The United States Be Colour-Blind?" The question, of course, involved Democratic presidential candidate Barrack Obama, the first African-American nominated by a major party to seek the presidency.

It graced the front page on Saturday's National Post, and illustrates how fast and loose the media often interprets political outcomes.

The inference is obvious. If Obama loses, it's because he's black. Period.

This same dynamic was in full-force during the Democratic primaries, which provided the perfect scenario for the professional handwringing set. If Obama lost, it was racism. If Hillary Clinton lost, it was sexism.

Never mind that it was a closely fought battle and inspired record numbers of registered Democrats to vote. Apparently the only issues at play were sexism and racism. Nothing else matters.

At a time when people in politics and the media claim we're beyond such considerations, except for a few pockets of hardliners, they all play the same game.

After the West Virginia primary, for example, where Clinton crushed Obama - 67 to 26 per cent, Obama's largest single defeat - the normally sensible veteran politico David Gergen went into an extraordinary tirade on CNN about how "sad" it was that "racism" is still so rampant. His proof? Exit polls showed 68 per cent of white voters opted for Clinton and, worse, two in 10 West Virginia voters said "race was a factor." No doubt some of them are racists, but that's a scourge not limited to white, rural, male voters. More to the point, however, Obama routinely wracked up 90 per cent or more of the black vote. Don't you think that for those black voters too, "race was a factor?" Or are those totals just a coincidence? So why is it "racist" when it's one way, and simply "cultural" when it's the other way?

If I were an African American - unless I was offended by his liberal political views - I too may be cheering for Obama. And why not? If I were female - and don't let my first name fool you, I'm not - I might be hoping for Clinton. Either way, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. People cast their votes for all kinds of reasons, usually having to do with their own self interest.

Yet one journalist in The Observer wrote after the West Virginia primary that Clinton's totals in some rural counties are so high "that even some third world dictators would be embarrassed to record" them. Oh really. What about Obama's totals among black Democrats? Should he be "embarrassed?" Talk about a double standard. Please.

The same dynamic sullied the Clinton coverage. Recently, journalist Judith Timson wrote a lament in the Globe and Mail arguing that Clinton lost because of sexism.

Yet Timson, apparently oblivious to the irony, opened her column by stating boldly that she cheered for Clinton "because she's a woman." Quite right. I don't have any problem with Timson pulling for somebody of her own gender, but why does she have a problem with people who pull for someone who is most like them? Why is it okay to vote for Clinton because of her gender, but "sexist" to vote against her?

Toronto Star editorialist Bob Hepburn also attributed Clinton's loss to "sexism," pure and simple. Apparently the 18 million Democrats who voted for Clinton aren't sexists (does that make them racists for not supporting Obama? Hmmnnn!) - but the other 18 million or so who voted for Obama are sexists. (The good news, apparently, is that at least they're not racists.)

Hepburn went a step further, warning Canadians not to be smug because sexism may even be worse in Canadian politics. His proof? Well, Sheila Copps was once called "baby" in the Commons. (Copps apparently was so traumatized by this attack that she jumped on it to entitle her own book, "Nobody's Baby." This is the same Copps who once accused Reform Leader Preston Manning of being "the David Duke of the north," a vile reference to a Louisiana Ku Klux Klan leader, a reference which, unlike the relatively innocent "baby" reference, rarely gets repeated by the self-declared champions of exclusiveness and fairness.)

Hepburn wrote another example of Canadian media "sexism" came when then prime minister Kim Campbell garnered "withering media criticism" for cavorting with her boyfriend during the 1993 federal election campaign. Maybe she should talk to Maxine Bernier, not to mention Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, or for that matter, Pierre Trudeau.

Still, now that the presidential race is between Obama and John McCain, the 71-year-old Republican nominee, I'm hoping that in the interest of fairness the next headline will read: "Can The United States Rebuff Agism?"