Hillary is correct (and boorish) to say that there is a racial component to the recent primary contests. But it does not put her in a good light and, even if true, will not effect the outcome in November.

Hillary is attracting the following groups in larger numbers than Obama:

1. Women

2. Older and low-income whites. (a 43% lead in tiny West Virginia? What's that about if not race?)

This is a large group of folks to be sure, but somehow Obama overcomes it in most parts of the country. Where does the significant disparity show up?

1. Women-- everywhere.

2. Older low income white -- the south and areas with southern culture in rural border states.

Obama's coalition is:

1. "Egg-heads and African-Americans", according to the great and tactful Paul Begala. (With Stephanopoulos, Begala, and Carville all uttering stupidities this year -- it is clear where the Clintons' arrogance came from.)

2. Those whites who favor Obama and do not harbor biases in favor of women or against blacks, or who just dislike Hillary. (There's a demographic nobody mentions.)

There you have it. Assuming Obama fails to garner as high a percentage of her coalition in November as Clinton would if she were the nominee, what is the net effect?

1. Democrats might not win deep south states. (Like they were going to anyway!)

2. Obama will receive fewer low income white votes in Ohio and Pennsylvania. (Women will not desert the party once they get over Hillary's loss.)

3. However, in every contestable state, Obama will pick up significant new voters, younger voters, independents, "egg-heads and African-Americans".

At best it's a push since the deep south states are not in play anyway, and Obama's pivotal base will more than make up for the McCain converts with racial bias.

Clinton may do better among non-egghead whites -- but that translates into a net zero in November.

Hi John Adkisson,

The first line of your post raised some questions for me, since so many people have been quick to bring up the "racial component".

I think there is a racial component only in the most general sense. So general, in fact, that it is meaningless. Here's why.

"Hillary is correct (and boorish) to say that there is a racial component to the recent primary contests."

But what does it mean?

Is she (to take the charitable view) saying, well black voters vote Democrat no matter what, so that's not much of a coalition?

That seems pretty cynical. As a group blacks are probably the most neglected segment of American society. (Please let's not turn this thread into a comparison of neglect. If anyone insists I'm willing to stipulate 'among the most neglected'.) So to run a campaign based on the idea that you needn't work for them and that you might even (arguably) alienate them to win the nomination, because they'll come back is pretty squalid.

To take the less charitable view, as many many people have, and suggest that somehow black voters are "racist" because they are voting for the black candidate, well, that's beneath contempt.

First, it seems like a stretch to infer individual motive from group behavior in this case. After all, Senator Obama has consistently argued that he wants to try to run a post partisan, and even post racial campaign. Is this naive? Maybe, maybe not. But that's not the point. What is he offering? He is offering what black voters want, what they may never have been offered before. And they are responding. And Senator Clinton? Well, there have been a series of comments which seem dismissive of black concerns (again, 'seem' is the operative word. I'm not interested in arguing whether she is or is not dismissive, just the perception, whether right or wrong). Who should black voters support? If there were two white candidates espousing the same positions as Clinton and Obama, I suspect the percentages would be roughly the same.

And why not ascribe the same motive to the white voters who support Senator Obama? Are they not racist too? Why not? Because their skin is white? Ah. So Black voters are racist if they vote Obama, but white voters are not? Why? Because other whites voted for Senator Clinton?

Is the suggestion that white voters who support Obama are listening to his positions and considering their interests, but black voters are simply looking at his skin?

84% of black voters voted for Bill Clinton in '96. But the argument here is they're not racist, they're the natural democratic base. I see. When they vote black, they're racist. When they vote white, they're democrats. Hmmm.

Finally it seems elementary, but even if you think that black voters vote for him because he is black (or half black) that's a far cry from voting against someone because of the color of their skin.

And that, after all, is what a large number of people who support Senator Clinton and McCain openly say they are doing.

That is racism, pure and simple.

Dear Doinel;

First, let me thank you for a thoughtful comment. I would love nothing more than to influence this slate site to be more analytical and thorough.

I teach cultural, gender and racial communication. In any conversation about miscommunication involving these topics it is foundational that each participant begin by listening outside their own autobiogaphies, as Steven Covey says.

To simply forgive Hillary's "hard-working white" stereotype, as some have done, is short on understanding from the perspectives of some readers and voters. This week Hillary said she was the champion of the "hard working whites" while black Barack was not. Logically and forgivingly, many doubted that she meant it the way that it may have sounded to some.

This means they are probably very goodhearted people who might be capable of true cross-cultural communication. They do dismiss her words as racist or rant on as some bloggers have that she and her surrogates are trying to "blacken up" Obama for the fall.

But it is destructive to fail to understand code language. All of my life and your life we have refused to tolerate code language for racial prejudice -- everything from "states rights" during segregation; to "he's different, he's well-spoken." These Speakers say nothing about race but communicate everything about racial biases to the listener.

Follow me so far? The speaker need not but may understand how the listener will interpret code language. Even if she doesn't undertand how it will be interpreted, it remains code language. My sense of the Clintons' long involvement in poitics, especially in the black community, would cause me to conclude that they knew or should have known that their boasting about the "white, harding working" vote would smack as racism to the listening African-American electorate.

Linguists speak of "messages" and "meta-messages." Only the "meta-messages" really matter in communication. For example, if a teacher were to say to a tardy student: it's 8:10 a.m., Junior, both the teacher and the student would know that the teacher was not just informing the student of the time of day ("the message"). No, both would instantly know that the real communication ("the meta-message") was "you're late this morning, Junior."

Just so with Hillary and Barack. The white woman says, "Oh he gets the egg-heads and the blacks" but he can't seem to attract the hard-working base of the party -- the whites.

The "message" many heard from Hillary as whites was: she was just making a demographic argument to bolster a justification for the nomination.

To my ear, as a civil rights guy, I hear many things hidden in that phrase of Hillary's: (1) a black man can't win and shouldn't be nominated; (2) a white candidate, even a woman can attract more hard-working whites; (3) the whites work harder and are more important than the blacks and the egg-heads put together because those hard working folks are more likely to bolt to the Republicans; and (4) I don't have any regard for how blacks, my traditional base, feel about me anymore since they have deserted me and I now value my new "white non-egghead" constituency more. These are all "disses."

Whether she consciously knew it or not the above four "meta-messages" came through loud and clear as code language harkening back to Jim Crow.

My conclusion is not that she is a racist, but that she and Bill too, are simply out of touch with their old political magic and have replaced smart politics with desparate, insensitive blather that sounds racist. In fact, it sounds so racist it is turning off the superdelgates and merely attracting West Virginia and Kentucky hard workers, so long as they're white. Too late for that strategy.

I agree with doinel, the Clintons aren't racists...they just willingly sold their soul to the devil for political gain. The Democrat party has always been a party of inclusion, so to take a position that purposely divides the party based on race is unbelievable! Clinton could possibly have won the nomination had she worked to shore up the black vote she lost after SC. She did not. Her failure to do so further alienated the black vote, she turned her back on this voting bloc. BIG MISTAKE.

The Clintons are not racists, they didn't sell their soul to the devil, and I don't think they are "boors" or whatever foolishness you guys say. It might be honest to admit that if there were a hispanic candidate or an Asian candidate or an American Indian candidate, or a gay candidate etc., who actually appeared like they had a decent chance to be elected president, then ethnic (or sexual preference) pride would swell to such an extent that no matter the quality of the opposition, these (traditionally disenfranchized) groups would rally around their own very similarly. don't you think? duh, as the kids say.

But how about you guys pick up the new Rolling Stone and read about what the Hillary Clinton campaign got right and did right. That's if you are really interested in extending yourself a little.