What prompted this post was a comment made yesterday evening on one of the older postings, which I excerpt here:

Who believes that his association with Rev. Wrignt reflects poorly on Obama? That's an interesting question.

There are two major classes of White voters, roughly defined by the fact that half of all voters have below-average intelligence.
The upper half is mostly college educated and either professional or working in offices where their work involves language and communication. These people include many atheists, agnostics, and people who go to church infrequently or for mostly social reasons. They listen politely to the sermons, which are usually a rehash of previous sermons, but are there mostly to meet others and exchange personal and family information and gossip. These people do not get their political opinion from their pastor or priest. They have minds of their own. One example: a large majority of Catholics use various means of birth control and oppose repeal of Roe vs. Wade. Among the better educated Catholics, this majority is much larger.

The lower half of the IQ spectrum has a different story. They are less educated and often do manual work. They go to church regularly and take their religious beliefs seriously. They look to the pastor or priest for both moral and political guidance. They often believe that he extrudes wisdom from every orifice.

This difference between the two halves determines their attitude toward Obama. The bright people know that Obama sits through Rev. Wright's sermons only in order to be elected and re-elected again and again to the Illinois Senate.
They know that Obama doesn't look to Rev. Wright for anything else but religious affiliation.

The duller people really believe that Obama is like them, that he gets his political ideas and ethics and wisdom from his pastor. These people will therefore associate Obama's beliefs with Wright's ideas.

The course for Obama is clear. Tell the truth. He needed TUCC only as an electoral base. It worked very well and he has spent the last eleven years in Springfield, Illinois or Washington, DC., not sitting in that church.

And that's the truff!

Not exactly racism, but definitely in the family. The idea that you can neatly divide the country into smart and dumb on the basis of educational opportunity and church attendance passes remarkable and goes down the line to scary. Next thing you know where in 1900s Indiana, sterilizing "defective" people.

As Forrest Gump was wont to intone, "..stupid is as stupid does..."

The absolute ease with which liberals classify people by race, education and religious observance is breath-taking in its arrogance and shear idiocy. Some of the smartest people I know either never went to college or never finished it for a variety of reasons. On the other hand, I know quite a few people of modest intelligence who have advanced degrees. The lovely bunny, who is nearing completely of a masters degree (and whose intelligence is immodest...), recently confided that in her experience, the most important factor in pursuing her program isn't shear intellectual horsepower, but the more prosaic quality of a good work ethic and organizational skills. Doctorates of course require actual mental Megawatts, but commonsense should dictate that knowledge that is an inch wide and a mile deep doesn't translate into wisdom in other areas of life--but don't tell them that...

It appears that every generation has to learn the same lessons over again.