...but consider the source.
Mark Davis, a Dallas/Fort Worth-area wingnut talk-show gas-bag (sorry for the redundancies, there) has a regular weekly column in the Dallas Morning News. Most weeks, it's typical RWCM bull, and easily discarded as red meat for his followers. Today, it's actually a seemingly reasoned consideration of whether there will be a so-called "dream ticket" of either Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama.
Until you get to the last paragraph, that is. And, then, Davis finds a subtle way to knife Obama. It's even subtler than the HRC "as far as I know" method -- and therein lies the tale. More below.
OK, so Davis lays out reasons for why it's unrealistic to think there might be a BHO/HRC or HRC/BHO ticket:
He will not choose her because he knows he cannot utter the word “change” 5 million times in a campaign and then run with one of the most familiar political faces of the last two decades.
He also knows that Bill Clinton will be a de facto cabinet member, if only in perception. Whether it's 1992 or 2008, when you take one Clinton, you get them both, and Mr. Obama needs that like a hole in the head. ... Plus, an Obama presidency will be sold on a heavy mantra of ethics and above-board behavior, a tough case to make if you are umbilically attached to the Clinton legacy. She helps him not one bit.
Conversely, the “dream ticket” is a nightmare for her, too. It violates one of the wisest rules of a presidential race — don't pick a running mate whose star shines 10 times brighter than yours. For a variety of reasons, millions of voters would spend each day wishing the ticket were flipped.
Fair enough. But then, he jams his knife in Obama's back with his closing paragraph:
I have no idea who will prevail in the Obama-Clinton derby, and I have no idea who the winner will choose as a running mate. But I do know that 100 percent of the barrier breaking will be done by the nominee. Vice presidential consideration will be limited to a list of white Christian men.
OK. Your inferences are welcome, of course, but here's how I read that...
Davis is implying a need for balance. The "white" and the "men" part are one thing (although I don't think anyone seriously thinks a two-female ticket would have a chance, especially since McCain may well put a woman on his ticket and thus blunt that considerably).
But "Christian"? The only reason you'd have to make that a specification for balance is if you're saying that one of the two remaining Democrats is something other than a Christian.
Hmm. Guess which one he must mean.
Pretty disgusting. But par for the course.