The New York Times prepares its readers for the loss of Ohio.

It’s all because of racism, of course:

But the main quarrels Democratic voters [in Jefferson County, Ohio] have with Mr. Obama have nothing to do with race. They include his rejection of one proposed route for the Keystone pipeline, a stance they say will harm this area, whose backbone, the Ohio River, is lined with metal mills and coal mines.

Oh, I’m sorry, but that was paragraph fifteen.  Presumably the NYT decided that its readers weren’t going to read past paragraphs three and four:

“Certain precincts in this county are not going to vote for Obama,” said John Corrigan, clerk of courts for Jefferson County, who was drinking coffee in a furniture shop downtown one morning last week with a small group of friends, retired judges and civil servants. “I don’t want to say it, but we all know why.”

A retired state employee, Jason Foreman, interjected, “I’ll say it: it’s because he’s black.”

Entertainingly, the only Jason Foreman from that area that I could find is a guy who gave money to disgraced Republican Bob Ney – and yes, Foreman’s political affiliation is actually relevant.  I mean, if I were to make a similar comment the Left would immediately assume that I was simply trying to cause trouble; it’s the presumption that this guy was a Democrat that makes the argument appear to be stronger.

But I digress.  The truth of the matter is, there are a lot of reasons not to vote for Obama in 2012, and the NYT knows it.  They even admit that the reasons why people won’t vote for him are not racist ones – with said admissions happening after the fold, of course.  In other words, this is rear-covering by the Old Grey Lady; the main objective here is to get its readers gently accustomed to the notion that Ohio is going the way of Indiana, North Carolina… and at this rate, with Florida and Virginia to follow suit soon.

If doing that requires slandering Ohioans, so be it.  After all, ever since 2010 Ohio is out of the map.

Moe Lane (crosspost)