As far as him using the word 'boys', he and Ann have that way about them when it comes to talking about their family. I bet there's thousands of instances of him saying 'my boys' while talking to members of the public on the campaign trail.

I really don't think it was a slight at Obama...that wouldn't serve him well anyway.

Did anyone catch how he said "poor kids" and then fear washed over him and he corrected it to "low income kids" was a very brief moment, but it's obvious he was trying hard not to step in anything.

He's not going to win points with the electorate already behind him and undecideds by calling Obama a boy.

If some people thought they caught that and relished in it, rather than were offended, it's not a number he needs to court. There's a much bigger number he needs to court that would be offput by that.
Originally Posted by sew and sew

It was "coded". That "boy" line was a "zinger"...specifically crafted, rehearsed, and delivered to send a message. It was powerful...yet subtle.

Like Obama's "lipstick on a pig" line from last election cycle. That was an insult to Sarah Palin, to mock her convention speech where she said something similar. It was a crafted, rehearsed, and delivered zinger. Powerful, yet subtle enough that Obama could deny that he ever meant anything insulting by it. Of course he did. Of course Romney did with the "boy" line.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves

Alright, well I saw that said and it didn't get delivered in carefully rehearsed zinger style to me. I know what you're talking about, and it truly didn't have that 'feel' to me.

And again, the incentive to take a dig like that would have to be incredibly low, so low that there's way more compelling disincentive.

I guess the retort to that is that there's so many racists in America that I underestimate how Romney would find it advantageous to play to them.

Which basically ends the argument...because there's damning absolutes being accepted without question.

"My boys" aside, I thought the point he was making was more mean than called for. You can dig at someone's credibility in less blanketed ways....ways that don't make it sound like you believe this is your opponents character all around. ...They're just a liar. In British politics that would fit in fine, but Americans are usually more civil.
Originally Posted by sew and sew

Of course there is incentive for Romney to use this type of coded racial language.

1. It's red meat for his base.
2. It serves to degrade Obama.
3. It helps keep white voters who might be considering voting for Obama in line by reminding them, subtly, that Obama is "other".
4. Regular white folks aren't likely to notice this type of racial insult, so there is little chance of being called out on it.
5. Minority folks who do notice, aren't likely to be paid attention to if they complain about the racial insult, because Romney has plausible deniability.

That's why it's important for regular white folks who do notice to say something and not just dismiss it as a ridiculous claim.