While I was inclined to dismiss recent outbursts by blogger Steve Gilliard (a minstrel caricature, use of the term "Sambo," etc.) as sui generis, the pelting of black Republican Michael Steele with Oreo cookies would seem to indicate that something more is going on.

A coordinated approach, possibly?

I suspect so, and I suspect the purpose is twofold. One is to convey a message that it's now open season on black conservatives or libertarians who think independently of the groupthink collectivism which has been imposed on them, and let them know that they, their families, and their finances are fair game for a no-holds-barred campaign of intimidation. The other is to grease the skids for similar future attacks against Condoleeza Rice on a much grander scale.

According to today's Washington Times, black Democrats argue that racial attacks on conservative Republicans are justified:

Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.

Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.

Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted.

But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious."

"There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.

"Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy."

Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.

"Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people."

During the 2002 campaign, Democratic supporters pelted Mr. Steele with Oreo cookies during a gubernatorial debate at Morgan State University in Baltimore.

In 2001, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. called Mr. Steele an "Uncle Tom," when Mr. Steele headed the state Republican Party. Mr. Miller, Prince George's County Democrat, later apologized for the remark.

"That's not racial. If they call him the "N' word, that's racial," Mrs. Marriott said. "Just because he's black, everything bad you say about him isn't racial."

This week, the News Blog -- a liberal Web log run by Steve Gilliard, a black New Yorker -- removed a doctored photo of Mr. Steele that depicted him as a black-faced minstrel.

However, the blog has kept its headline "Simple Sambo wants to move to the big house." A caption beneath a photo of the lieutenant governor reads: "I's Simple Sambo and I's running for the Big House."

A spokesman for the Maryland Democratic Party denounced the depiction as being "extremely offensive" and having "no place in politics or in any other aspect of public discourse," The Washington Post reported. Democrats have denied any connection to the News Blog.

What's fascinating about this is that not only can a black man be called "anti-black" merely for having conservative views (which many on the left define as including libertarianism), but that all white people who agree with him are similarly called racists. (Obviously, this means that heterosexuals who might agree with a gay conservative are "homophobic," while men who agree with conservative women are sexist.)

If we follow this logic, the words "racist" and "racism" take on an entirely new dimensions. In a world where pelting a black man with Oreo cookies is not racist (because the black man himself is against black people), then opposing the pelting should also be considered an act of racism.

Steve Gilliard's thinking provides a clue to understanding the mechanism of the new racism.

if Andy Sullivan doesn't like what I say, that's the point of the exercise. Little Green Fucktards, Michelle "I slander American heroes" Malkin?

Good. I want them to read this site every day and say: I hate that nigger, I wish he'd go away. That, to me, is success. First, it was Instacracker, then Jonah "Chickenhawk" Goldberg, now Andy Sullivan. All I need is the Powerline assholes and my collection of Conservative bloggers who hate me would be complete. Well, they hate me for being black anyway, but now they would have a reason.

I'm black, I don't care what white conservatives have to say. They already hate me for my skin color, forget my politics. They are dedicated to making black lives harder. 97-98 percent of black people know that.

1. All are said to be "conservatives";

2. all "hate" Steve Gillard;

3. they "hate" him not because of any disagreement, but because he is black.

Perhaps it's because I don't read blogs as much as I should, but had Justin not told me that Steve Gilliard was black, I might never have known.

Now that I know the man is black, there's no way that I can escape the usual charge of conservatism, hate-mongering, and racism.

I know I am considered guilty, but I just wanted to beg for a little understanding and point out that it would have been impossible for me to hate Steve Gilliard for being black before I knew he was black!

I hope my ignorance (and previous color blindness) will be taken into account at sentencing.

MORE: My plea for clemency is likely to be denied, as I just learned that I am not off the hook even if I didn't know Steve Gilliard was black. That's because my very act of not knowing that might leave me open to the accusation that I assumed he was white:

....why do people assume I'm white? Because many people simply cannot imagine a black man blogging, much less expressing his opinions on a range of topics. It isn't what they are trained to think. Sports, ok, but politics, nope.

Sheesh.

(Next he'll be making the "heteronormative" assumption that "people" are heterosexual.)

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has posted Gilliard's Steele-as-minstrel picture. I'd been searching for it, and I'm sharing it here in the hope that it might help us in understanding, um, racism:

MORE: Remember, the above is not racism according to the meaning of that term today.

But criticizing it is.

The bright side is that when words lose all meaning, why worry about the meaning of words?

UPDATE: Black Democratic senatorial candidate Kweisi Mfume has condemned these racial attacks:

Kweisi Mfume, who is running for senator, yesterday outright condemned the comments by his fellow black Democrats.

"Racially tinged attacks have no place in this campaign for U.S. Senate," said Mr. Mfume, who has chided his party's lack of support for his campaign. "If they did, I could very well be the object of public racial humiliation, based on my skin color, by people who don't like my politics."

"Black bigotry can be just as cruel and evil as white bigotry. There are too many bigots in too many places," Mr. Mfume said, repeating a common refrain from his speeches.

(I have to say, I'm pleasantly suprised.)

UPDATE: Jeff Goldstein points out that it is now open anti-individualism that is being championed, and concludes:

Perversely, then, we have progressives sanctioning the kind of racial attacks they would normally decry on the grounds that those who choose the wrong party affiliation have surrendered the protection of their race. And what makes this so troubling is that it redefines the idea of “offense” as something that is to be decided upon by identity groups—and so is yet another way in which identity politics robs the individual of autonomy.

UPDATE: ANd more here via Glenn Reynolds, who notes that "'race-loyalty' has become an important campaign issue."

Am I allowed to hope it's a losing one?