A few days after her debate with Joe Biden, vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin told a group of donors in Colorado, “Our opponent . . . is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”

Her comment was fair enough, considering Barack Obama’s unusual collection of acquaintances, including sixties radical and domestic terrorist William Ayers, a socialist whose radical group set bombs at the Pentagon and the United States Capitol. And that’s without even including his hate-inspired spiritual mentor, the ignoble reverend Jeremiah Wright.

However, in response to Palin’s obviously non-racial comment, AP writer Douglass Daniel remarkably discovered her words carried a “racial tinge.” In so doing, he argued, “Palin’s words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee “palling around” with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn’t see their America? In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims . . .”

Based on his incongruous rationale, it now appears the definition of racism has taken on another distinct meaning, at least until election day.

The current definition as offered by those in the mainstream media is especially specious – if one so much as questions the political positions or past relationships of Obama, he becomes a living example of racism, one deserving of banishment from polite society.

Breathlessly questioning whether race will actually prevent Obama from obtaining the presidency, many among the left have placed a peculiar spin on the issue, namely that if one happens to be a white person and does not vote for him then it’s because he is a racist, while others are preparing excuses for an Obama loss, arguing that if McCain prevails it will only be because he’s a white man.

It’s an archaic political message more obsessed with victimhood than with true racial justice, and it’s regrettable.

By implying racism is uniquely a one-way street, those with an agenda conveniently ignore that countless millions will act racially by supporting Obama simply because he is black or bi-racial, glossing over the fact that his racial makeup remains his most persuasive attribute to many minorities. Thousands more will support him simply because they believe it will advance the goal of racial equality.

Fairness would at least recognize the issue of race as both an advantage and a disadvantage for the Obama campaign. Some people will not vote for Obama because he is a black man, but many will rush to support him for that very reason.

Nevertheless, an overwhelming majority of Americans have already made the conscious decision to judge him as an individual and not part of a racial collective.

If Obama is not successful in his first presidential bid, it will not be because he is a black man; such race-laden excuses for failure should no longer appear viable to reasonable thinkers.

Assuming he does falter, his campaign’s demise will instead be the natural result of a radical political philosophy and relative lack of qualifications. His soaring, style over substance rhetoric has a way of convincing the unquestioning, but an examination of his proposals and positions evidence a candidate who dwells among the fringe left-wing of the Democratic party.

By way of example, he claims to support Second Amendment rights, but he has never met a gun ban or restriction he didn’t embrace. While in the Illinois State Senate, he was an advocate for numerous gun control laws.

A lifelong advocate of abortion on demand, Obama sanctions the culture of death, supporting euthanasia and partial birth abortion. He also supports taxpayer funding for abortions through Medicare and Medicaid. Likewise, he voted against parental notification requirements for abortions for minors and opposed the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act while an Illinois State Senator.

He lends support to affirmative action programs in public employment and university admissions, while maintaining that the Supreme Court’s recent decisions prohibiting the use of race in determining public school assignments are wrong

Regarding national security, Obama naively promises talks, without preconditions, with leaders of countries that are state sponsors of terror and believes he can negotiate lasting peace with Islamic extremists seeking Israel’s annihilation. He has vowed to slow the development of future weapon systems and supports cutting funding for development of critical missile defense systems.

He has opposed offshore drilling for oil, and plans to raise taxes significantly, including burdensome levies on income, payroll and capital gains. As an author of the Global Poverty Act, he proposes to fund a $845 billion dollar giveaway to other nations.

Obama has voted against a bill that would make English the official language for conducting business with the federal government, while supporting giving driver licenses to illegal immigrants.

Perhaps more alarmingly, seeking to re-write the Constitution by use of judicial fiat, he has promised to appoint federal judges and justices in the liberal elitist mold of Justice Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, thus further eroding the future of responsible self-government in America.

In light of the above – and much, much more – it will not be the next president’s race that influences the destiny of our republic; it will be his ideas.

Now is not the time to gamble with radicalism, regardless its skin tone.