I have been noticing lately there are certain situations which seem to be acceptable, however when those situations become reversed people are easily offended. For example; living in Utah the past year I have met several supporters of Mitt Romney. (Go figure... of the 284,790 Republican voters in Utah 255,218 voted for Romney on Feb 5th.) In discussing why they thought he would make a good candidate the only answer I could get out of them was "because he's Mormon."
However, when I asked their opinion about people who would not vote for him just because he is Mormon, I could almost see the steam coming out of their ears. "That's just ridiculous! You can't just not vote for someone because of their religion!" So why is ok for Mormons to vote for Romney because of his religion and it is not ok for people of other religious backgrounds to vote for someone else because they don't agree with Romney's religion?
Another thing I have noticed is the race between Clinton and Obama. Recently a member of Clinton's campaign (Geraldine Ferraro) mentioned that Obama is winning by so much because he is popular with the African-American voters. She was automatically dubbed a racist and her head put in the guillotine. However her comments were not incorrectly stated. In yesterday's Mississippi primary Obama won 91% of the African-American vote, (which was 44% of all voters in the state) and about 30% of the White vote
Now if Clinton were to have 91% of the White vote, then Obama's camp would have no problem pointing out that she is merely winning because White voters just aren't voting for him.
So why is it ok to point out a situation one way and not another?