I wouldn't consider it a "racist" remark; probably more of an exaggeration. And you are right; there are more accomplished minorities than Barack Obama. However, he is the "new kid on the block" sort of speak that happens to be multi-racial and, the candidate for "change."
To my understanding, historically minority voters tend to favor "change" candidates. It didn't matter what color they were (i.e., Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, etc), they seem to put their buck on the new guy. Fortunately or Unfortunately (depending on how you look at it), the new guy happens to be a multi-racial candidate in this campaign..!! The turnout numbers for the primaries may be larger than past records but, does that change the overall view that there would be a good chance that Democratic minority voters would favor a new, for change candidate?
From this particular view point, I don't see anything happening out side of tradition... The difference is in the concept of "change." The "change" candidate in this campaign just happens to be Barack Obama. I am no political whiz but, being around since the Kennedy era, I could even see this trend.. Kennedy was the Democratic candidate for hope and change as well as Carter and Clinton. All of which carried the majority of minority votes! That is, for the majority of minorities that DID vote... Based on trends alone would have laid out the possibility that Barack, being the current day voice for "hope and change" would get the majority of minority voters; no matter what color he is.. I am black but, I would have voted for him even if he was white, mexican, asian, spanish or whatever race because, he is the "hope and change" candidate. His message is to challenge political and economical change....
Discuss