Identification

President Obama noted that "Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago."

George Zimmerman, not so much, apparently. There is no mention of Obama identifying with his situation in any way. Which tells you why he assumed the guilt of one and the victimhood of the other immediately as the story broke, continuing on to the present hour.  Years of legal training and practice did not embed the idea that criminal matters rest on Reasonable Doubt.  Advocates for revenge on George Zimmerman have tried to apply the preponderance of the evidence standard of civil cases from the beginning. (At best.  Many have reversed the field entirely and tried to sell the idea that if there was any reasonable doubt about Trayvon's guilt, then Zimmerman should be convicted. Chilling.) Gee, do we think it was likely that an hispanic neighborhood watch guy was a racist?  Which invites the other side to ask Do we think it probable that a young black man was trying to rob someone/case the neighborhood?  Those are not the questions, have never been the questions, and no one in a position of responsibility should have been encouraging either side to think that way. 

The idea that there was even a 1% chance that Mr. Zimmerman might have reasonably perceived his neighborhood, and then his person, to be in danger has seemingly not occurred to Barack even now.  Skin color - not "minority status" - was ultimately the only important factor. The DOJ helped organize protests on one side of this issue, and moved within hours to recharge Zimmerman under hate crime laws.  How do you think the relatively powerless George Zimmerman feels, knowing that the POTUS is after him?

Welcome to supposedly post-racial America.  It is a fine thing for a president to identify with the individual situations of the people he leads. But it must then be all of them, or it incites factionalism.