Note today from a former VERY big wig in the local Republican Party - who agreed entirely with last week’s bit about Obama and the latent racism of some who won’t vote for him.

And another curious reaction to all that, as well: Several notes, this week, from readers who ID themselves as black and Latino. Often afraid to speak up in this town:

I am an 80 yr. old black woman born and raised in Lancaster co. I’m sorry that many of those who need to read your column will never read it.

Well, they might read it, but only as a prelude to sending me winger mail about how they’re not racist, it’s all the danged negroes’ fault.

Which brings us to this, Jay Ackroyd posting over at Atrois’s site, in which he references a Time Magazine bit by Jay Newton-Small which noted the role that “scurrilous e-mails about Obama” seem to have played in Kentucky, amongst voters who said “they weren’t convinced Obama was a Christian and were afraid to vote for a Muslim.”

Writes Ackroyd:

Email is a big cog in the attack machine this time ’round. I saw it for myself in Maine on caucus weekend when an old family friend resisted entreaties to caucus for Obama, saying he couldn’t support someone who refuses to say the pledge of allegiance. The email had come from a trusted source, and was firmly set in his mind.

Real process coverage would be exploring this–where does the mail come from, how much is out there, what false things does it say–and debunking it.

Well, I’ve written about the phenomenon several times. These e-mails seem to be a major source of “news” for a certain demographic. Middle-aged, predominantly middle- to lower-middle class, people who tend not to be real comfortable around technology (and hence may be unlikely to go Googling or check Snopes to see if the accusations are actually true) and who - this is most important - want to believe the smears being forwarded to their in-box.

And because they want to believe it they do believe it; and they forward it on to someone else who is likely to believe it. Repeat, ad nauseum.

I actually got some of that this time around, as well. One woman who sent me two such e-mails - easily debunked by Snopes - and who asked (all in caps, another indication of the demographic audience for these things) - THIS INFO SPEAKS FOR IT’S SELF . ANY COMMENT?

Yes. My comment is, you’re an idiot.

And a racist.

But Ackroyd raises an interesing point. Where does this stuff come from? Is it - or could it be - formulated by campaigns, as dirty tricks? Worse has been done.

That campaigns might do something like this isn’t what interests me. What interests me, as always, is the reaction of the American public to such things. The degree to which some people are so happy, so eager, to believe as received truth the things that show up in their inbox.

But they don’t need the verification, right? No need to check Snopes - they know these things are true in their gut. This is Colbert’s “truthiness.” And it resonates large with a significant chunk of the population; a significant chunk of the population that is easily led and misled, a significant chunk of the population that harbors an inherent hostility towards the nefarious “other,” a significant chunk that “knows” things without ever needing the actual proof.

A significant chunk of the population that the Democratic Party ought to advise: Get smart.

Or get lost.