Is Iowa racially incorrect?  In an interview with Republican strategist Michael Murphy, Andrea Mitchell of NBC News had the audacity to allude to an unnamed critic who is supposedly dismissing Iowa because it's "too white." 

What we do know is that A.G. Sulzberger of the New York Times recently wrote this: "Iowa has long been criticized as too much of an outlier to be permanently endowed such an outsize influence in shaping the presidential field. Too small, critics say. Too rural. Too white."

Apparently, the critics Sulzberger cited dismiss the fact that regardless of how many white people live in Iowa, the Republican field would have included an African-American candidate had the liberal media given Herman Cain the same benefit of the doubt they extended to a white man named Bill Clinton when he was accused -- and subsequently proven guilty -- of much more. 

If not for the media blowing Herman Cain's alleged and uncorroborated philandering into a major story, the Iowa caucus wouldn't have been "too white" because Cain, who happens to be black, would have been on the roster.

As caucus voters in Iowa headed to the polls to vote, it appeared as if the media, consisting mostly of white liberals, were gearing up for the Obama 2012 effort by taking steps toward conjuring up pre-election visions of "too white," toothless, cross-burning racists.

Instead of asking pertinent questions about issues that impact America's future, the mainstream media wastes precious time fueling the melanin meter and measuring skin tones against a liberal color chart.

Remember how, in tandem with Democrats, the media worked day and night to make sure the words 'Tea Party' were synonymous with racist?  Apparently, that same group doesn't think it's important to question the widespread expressions of anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street, or query Obama on how he plans to reconcile fostering class warfare with promoting national unity.

Yet Andrea Mitchell did feel it was imperative to raise a phantom question based on claims by an unnamed "critic" that the caucuses in Iowa weren't accurately representative of a diverse/secular/urban America. 

Regardless of these supposed 'white, Christian, rural' drawbacks, in 2008 Iowa helped put Barack Obama in the White House.  Wonder whether Andrea Mitchell's mysterious critic thought Iowa was failing to represent America in 2008?

For the record, there are only 14 states with smaller populations than the Hawkeye State of Iowa, and due to rural flight, 61% of Iowans now live in urban areas. Iowa is largely Christian, and more than 90% white.  Thus, according to critics in the media, Iowa is too white...too Christian, and although less rural, still too rural.

Sad but true, the America that the media promotes is one categorized only by race and class.  Liberal media elitists like Andrea Mitchell want the majority of Americans to believe that secular urban dwellers who choose to contribute to NARAL instead of tithing to a local church are the underrepresented majority, when in reality they are not. The nation's largest population may live in urban areas, but America is still largely white and Christian.

It wasn't white Christian Iowans that registered irrelevant racial implications via an anonymous critic - it was Andrea Mitchell representing the liberal media.

Maybe Andrea Mitchell can answer a question for all Americans: Why isn't the same liberal media, giddy with joy and tripping over each other to reveal the identities of Herman Cain's accusers, as eager to reveal the identity of the person concerned with a socially conservative state like Iowa being "too white" to represent people of color in Obama-friendly blue states?

Author's content: www.jeannie-ology.com