I won't vote for Barack Obama. I can't, because aside from everything else, his politics and policies are too socialistic for me.

However, I have a long history of defending him in this blog -- which stretches all the way back to his run against Alan Keyes, which actually prompted me to start "RepublicansforObama.com." (Yeah, I let it lapse -- probably one of many of my financial mistakes in life.)

But my defense of Barack Obama (whom I saw as kind) did not end with a reaction to the candidacy of Alan Keyes (whom I saw as cruel).

When he was campaigning against Hillary Clinton, I found him to be pleasant and polite (again Obama the Kind) in contrast to Hillary the Cruel. I noted it in my Pajamas Media column about the South Carolina debate:

At least Obama sounds reassuring, even if his policies aren't.

This may be irrational, but if I am going to have to endure socialism, can't I at least get it with a more calming and soothing voice?

Well, at least I was cynical enough to recognize the political irony of this civility theme, which I amplified in a post titled "Hillary the Cruel does Obama the Kind":

Seen in old fashioned, politically incorrect terms, Obama is polite, and Hillary is rude.

But you can't say that.

No, really. If you think about it in identity politics terms, you can't say those things comfortably about either. Say Obama is polite, and you can be accused of implying that he's a rare exception, that the others in his identity group are rude. Say Hillary is rude, and you're "stereotyping women!" It's bad enough that such nonsense is promoted in nearly every college in the country. I hate to see it working its way into the highest offices of the land.

So, at the risk of being a racist pig, I'll say once again that Obama comes across as nice, while at the risk of being a sexist pig, I'll say once again that Hillary comes across as rude.

At the rate things are going, it will be considered racist -- and sexist -- to judge individuals by the content of their character.

In light of yesterday's news, I don't know whether I was a rube to see Obama as kind. Or civil. Or polite. Or whatever word is allowed these days.

Let me stop right there before I get to the news item.

I'm not engaged in overwrought political hyperbole "whatever word is allowed these days," because apparently I'm not supposed to talk about civility.

At least, not according to writer Frank Furedi who was given an official warning from his publisher:

I was moved to despair when I found out that one of my favorite words, "civilized," ought not be used by a culturally sensitive author because of its alleged racist implications.

Anyway, the news is that Obama seems to have abandoned what probably in retrospect ought to be called his "politeness meme":

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said.

There went my argument in favor of Obama. (With that statement, he's demonstrated that he doesn't mind moving to the style of the shrill and angry Alan Keyes. Or the venomous Ann Coulter. Yeah, or even "Anndrew Coulter.")

I might not have wanted socialism, but I had at least hoped for civility. I know I'm not perfect in that regard, and I've often admitted I don't live up to my own standards. I can't say I've never lost my temper or succumbed to the temptation of in-your-face politics, because I have. But standards -- and civility is a very important standard -- set a goal, and not living up to them does not make the standards wrong.

With civility out the window as a standard, can condemning civility itself be far behind?

If liking civility is now considered a form of racism, what does that mean? Incivility becomes good? Rudeness and in-your-face politics are now desirable ways to communicate?

Forgive me if I say that it's not looking like a better world.

AFTERTHOUGHT: I realize that there are those who would accuse me of racism for disliking Barack Obama's recent angry rhetoric. (And probably for liking the older, kinder, Obama.) According to this view, not liking angry rhetoric coming from a back man is racism (if the critic is white).

Well then, what about my intense dislike -- for many years -- of Alan Keyes' angry rhetoric?

I don't remember any accusations of racism.

And I might be wrong, but I suspect that if Keyes had a sudden change of heart (and did a Culture War about-face) his newfound white friends would not be accused of "racism" for liking him!

MORE: From Glenn Reynolds, a question:

if Obama is President, will Time regard every criticism of his administration as racist?