I've been thinking about this issue for awhile. Race comes up for Obama, as something he needs to explain or justify (not unreasonable after Rev. Wright).

But the flip side, which isn't talked about enough, is the often stated "blue collar white voters won't vote for Obama." Article after article repeats this line and then moves on.

But what is this line really saying? "Clinton's strategy relies on white racist voters." Another corollary that isn't spoken aloud: "A large segment of the the Democratic base consists of people who are at least racist enough to distrust a black candidate."

It strikes me as an elephant in the middle of the Democratic room.

This is bull.

In the general election, Democrats will only have one choice. If it's Obama, I don't think race will be their major, number one issue, do you? I think Democrats will vote Democrat. No matter what their own race.

Well, I wonder a bit how education level plays into the equation. Obama outpolls Clinton for folks with college degrees, she's outpolling him for the "blue collar" workers. Is this due to race or due to the amount of time and number of venues a voter researches to discern the differences among candidates? Is Obama's eloquence a black mark among the non-eloquent? I know that a couple of my blue collar buds that voted for Bush last election knew nothing about what either candidate stood for, voting only on a visceral basis. Perhaps Bill and Hillary are familiar enough to these voters that Hillary receives the nod. I'm not so naive as to dismiss the race angle, though. I was particularly struck by the super white state angle, that race isn't an issue because there is no history of the races mixing. I'm in Wisconsin and I never had a black classmate until college. Race isn't a consideration for me--I'm just thrilled to have voted for someone who is both intelligent and articulate.

Thanks so much for the posting. Sort of the Rosetta Stone of Clintonian race-baiting--really wraps the whole thing up as starkly as could be. And Sirota frames the whole thing beautifully, if that's the word.

I am shocked and saddened that every day I come here a new post it put up to purport how "racist" Hillary and her supporters are......I'd find it offensive if it wasn't so pathetic. I'd love to see someone trip off a list of things that Barack Obama has actually proposed to do that is novel and that we've not heard before. How the things he has proposed or the ideas he has will move us forward.

Louisville blog his/her own thoughts and not just casting insults about?

Novel.

I find it most interesting that the line of inclusiveness and idealism and respect you claim to foster in your political life, is very much absent on these boards. In fact, you are hardly an advertisement for the Dem party -- it seems that you don't want people except Dems to discuss Dem candidates. Don't you know that the Dems have had open primaries in many states?

Laurajordan has been an even-keeled poster and put content on these boards. I have yet to see you write something involved and thoughtful.

Mostly you just lash out 1 or 2 lines to anyone who disagrees with you.

Again: I challenge you: why not sit down and type out a 4-5 paragraph blog with some of your thoughts? Show me where *you* stand on the issues.

The New York Senator’s last-ditch efforts to win the Democratic nomination could rely on the “Race Chasm”...

Too fucking rich. Obama's vaunted {{{insurmountable/overwhelming/nomination-inevitable}}} lead is built on the “Race Chasm". He swept the south, where we will not win a state in 2008, like Sherman's march to the sea. His delegate lead is built upon delegates he won in GA, SC, AL, MS, etc because of a primary race chasm. When we lose each of those states in Nov, maybe David can fondly recall how well Obama did in each of them in early 2008 and ask himself "Who knew we would lose those states in Nov?"

I'm sorry, but I think the linked article is a bunch of junk. Hillary answered a direct question about Rev. Wright, she hasn't hammered the issue. The media has been the ones to focus so much on Rev. Wright and they're the ones who've been focused on race since New Hampshire (Obama didn't win because the people of NH are secretly racists)

I could go point-by-point through the piece, but I'd say that if they were any "villains", it'd be the media and the Clinton campaign has probably interjected race, much less than the Obama campaign.

And, it's not Hillary's fault that Pennsylvania has never elected an African-American statewide and that the Lexington (KY) newspaper apologized in '04 for ignoring the Civil Rights Movement and failing to report on the subject at the time.

I'm just glad that with Hillary still in the race, the Democrats of those two states have a conduit through which they can express their excitement.

Thank you for posting this link here.
I've been posting and e-mailing this link, along with the link to the radio interviews with Jay Marvin on the subject for a few days now.

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DENVER-CO/KKZN-AM/Monday%203-31%20Hour%203.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=DENVER-CO&NG_FORMAT=talk&SITE_ID=650&STATION_ID=KKZN-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=Jay_Marvin&PCAST_CAT=Spoken_Word&PCAST_TITLE=THE_JAY_MARVIN_SHOW

Although the Sirota article and graph speak for themselves to everyone with a working conscience and calculator, I'll just add this for consideration.

The article, and the thinking behind it are not BS, or garbage.
People have been asking for months, especially since South Carolina, why African American voters "abandoned" Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Even though African American voters have been among the most loyal "Clinton supporters" for two decades, most pundits chalked it up to "a black thing," based entirely on Obama's race.

May I suggest, that black voters began to notice some very familiar and unsettling phrases coming from Clinton surrogates long before most white voters began to admit that something may be amiss with the not-so-careful- wordings of the usually careful Bill Clinton. From Rendell's often ignored "Pennsylvania not ready to vote for a black president" (paraphrased), to Ferraro's never-quite-disavoyed bigoted fumble, to the Texas Latino organizer (I forget her name)who explained on tape why Latino voters won't vote for black candidates, black folks got it. After all, African American voters recognize the "Southern Strategy," no matter who is using it, or whether they have been claiming to be on your side, and in your corner for years and years and years.

Clinton's problem has simply been how to effectively advance her divisive, race-based campaign without looking racist herself.
Ask yourself what Clinton means by "Obama is unelectable," and why she can't spell it out exactly.

Ask yourself what Clinton means by "buyers' remorse." Basically, that is the new more-coded name for "white backlash." Bascally, what they have been trying to point out and promote is that the more black-skinned Americans vote for Obama, the less blue-collar Americans will.

I have no problem with Senator Clinton pointing out unpleasant truths about our nation. In fact had she treated us as adults and said "considering the realities of our time, it may be difficult for Obama to win the presidency considering that many of the black voters he has depended on to get this far in the Democratic race, (where most Black voters are anyway, will very likely be out-numbered) by "conservatives" come November.

Black folks have known and considered this from the beginning of Obama's campaign. It was impossible not to. However, instead of appealing to the pragmatism and intelligence of voters black, and white alike, they took the calculation that with the right words by the right people in the right places, it would be a whole lot easier to produce more new bigots than new black voters by Denver, or November.

Hillary Clinton is stuck with the choices she has made regarding to race politics, especially those made after her string of losses in February.

Anyway, wrapping this up, I just want to add that the other day TPM posted a YouTube link with Donna Brazile explaining the credentials committe.
If you watched it, and waited until the clip menu came up, the following Fox interview with Mark Halperin came closest to explaining the real Clinton campaign strategy.....listen to the part referring what Clinton cannot say in polite company.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ3Gyum4434

Like I said, I have no problem with unpleasant truths, and Obama may be unelectable because of his race. However, I do have a problem with the Clintons fanning the flames of bigotry and race fear; and waiting for them to engulf Obama to such a point that she can crash through the door in a flame-proof pants-suit shouting "See, I told you so, there is just too much racism in our great nation for Obama to be elected, right now....but maybe in eight years."

Some people think of their identity more as skin color, others relate more to what's between their legs. Alice Walker's orientation is obviously skin color. If it weren't, she'd realize that we are still, historically speaking, in a political arena where women -- who make up a MAJORITY of the population -- are scandalously UNDER-REPRESENTED. How many black mayors are there in towns that have more whites that blacks? And how many women are mayors in towns that have more men than women? ZERO, Alice, get it? Now, act on it!
As a writer and a woman, Walker should know that as soon as Hillary Clinton is referred to as a woman, she's in a minority, a minority which gots its suffrage AFTER the black man did.
Obama's candidacy has re-injected racism because so many Afro-American women like Walker voted with their skins. The numbers in Mississippi were eloquent.
But -- before closing -- I'd like to quote a black woman in Mississippi who was interviewed on CNN on March 5th. She had just voted Clinton and she had this to say:

"She implement change. She stands by her words. She speak it. She do what she say. She bring it home."