Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mary Mitchell, forever on guard against the white racism she’s expecting to spring troll-like from its ubiquitous hiding places, has managed again to twist a few facts to suit her nasty bigotry.

In her latest exercise in tedium, she cited an AP-Yahoo News poll that concludes that Barack Obama’s race could cost him “six percentage points—enough for him to lose in a closely contested race.”

I’m not sure what poll Mitchell is reading, since when I look at the one* she seems to be citing, I see different results. The poll finds that nine percent of all respondents said that Obama being the first black president would make them less likely to vote for him. Yes, this is wrong. But if you bother to read the survey’s next line, you find that another nine percent said that Obama being the first black president would make them more likely to vote for him.

Interesting how Mitchell seemed to overlook this important fact, conveniently avoiding the question that if it’s wrong to vote against someone because of his race, isn’t it also wrong to vote for someone because of his race. Would Mitchell suggest that voting for someone because of his race is all right because it is a matter of racial pride? Or that voting for the black candidate a matter of social justice, but voting for the white candidate is just another exercise of “white privilege.”

Undoubtedly, racism is present, as indicated by the number of whites Democrats who confessed to holding negative “views” of blacks, although anyone examining the data closely would know that whites tend to hold more positive views of blacks. (Great majorities of whites view blacks as hard-working, determined to succeed, dependable, intelligent at school, friendly, good neighbors, keep up their property well and smart at every day things. Can we have a similar poll of black attitudes about whites?) Still, ten percent of white respondents said race would make them less likely to vote for Obama, while six percent said they would more likely vote for Obama because he’s black. Interestingly, more people hold Obama’s religion against him than his race, although that might have something to do with the assertion that he’s really a closet Muslim than a Christian, which itself is a big so-what?

Overall, 84 percent of white respondents said Obama’s race made no difference. Even if you knock a few percentage points off the 84 percent because some respondents didn’t want to confess to racist attitudes, that’s still a heartening number. Well, maybe not heartening to those who must believe the worst about white folks.

Now, we get to the part of the poll that failed its readers: the researchers didn’t break down for us the number of black voters who were voting for Obama because of his race, or who plan to vote against John McCain of his race. This is the kind of omission that drives fair-minded people nuts because it focuses attention on the negatives of white people, but not similarly of blacks. How tempting it is to write off this significant omission to the liberal bias of academicians and social scientists.

Mitchell comes away from the survey convinced that its “exposed bigotry” of whites is a caution to Democratic party: “If the party lets the bigots determine the outcome of the election,” she warns, “it will likely lose black support for decades to come.” Which is to say, the party must adopt her antipathy toward whites, or else.

But even if America elects Obama president, Mitchell still sees reasons to froth: “If Obama wins the White House, it won’t prove that America is ready for a black president as much as it will prove someone other than a white male can be elected to the presidency,” she said. Huh?

Mitchell once asked rhetorically if she was the only one who, in this presidential election, saw the snake of racism in the room. No, others of us do see racism, but instead of the menacing and immense image of a boa constrictor that fills her mind’s eye, the truth of it is that the snake is more of a garden variety.

*The Associated Press-Yahoo Poll, Wave 6, in Partnership With Stanford University; interview dates: Aug. 27 to Sept. 5, 2,227 adults; 1,728 registered voters; 1,083 Democrats, 798 Republicans; confidence level: ±2.1 for all adults; ±2.4 for registered voters, ±3.0 for Democrats; ±3.5 for Republicans.