This short blip from Mark over at the Corner pretty much sums things up for me.  I find indentity politics absolutely revolting, and after a year of dems calling me racist for being involved in the teaparties, am about fed up with the hypocrisy of it all.

“…this comment by Matthew Yglesias (full disclosure: Mr Yglesias has no use for me) tiptoes ever so tentatively toward the heart of it:

“It’s good that Reid apologized, but at the same time you can’t really apologize for being the sort of person who’d be inclined to use the phrase “negro dialect” and it’s more the idea of Reid being that kind of person that’s creepy here than anything else.”

One understands the realities of power. You can talk about how light-skinned and clean the Negro is and that’s perfectly okay as long as you support the President’s policies or (as Mr Obama put it in his acceptance of Reid’s apology) “social justice”. But, if you go along to a town hall meeting and say you oppose the health care bill because you’re very concerned at what you hear about waiting times for MRIs in Canada, you’re obviously a knuckledragging racist who’s itching to string that uppity Negro from the nearest tree….

…even if you accept all that, you’re still left with what Mr Yglesias calls the “creepiness” – the fact that the Senate Majority Leader and to a lesser extent the Vice-President think in this way. To those of us who find identity politics repugnant, it would seem to confirm that an unhealthy obsession with “anti-racism” eventually becomes so condescending it’s indistinguishable from racism – or, at any rate, the micro-classifications of apartheid – to the point where bigtime Dem honchos are sitting around saying, “What we need here is a clean octoroon.” “Well, this high yaller from Chicago might do the trick.” I mean, in what sense are Harry Reid’s remarks any different from this?”