The Latino/Working Class voting proclivities are not independent, and it is very misleading to ignore that distinction. The Clinton pollster, (still with the campaign), that floated the canard that Latinos wouldn't vote for a black man, even one as 'white' as Obama, set us all down a road it seems very few are willing to properly evaluate. A statistician could tell you that Hillary's lead amongst blue-collar Democrats will go a long way toward explaining the Latino gap, (as Latinos are substantially more likely to be blue collar than white voters), if not all the way, possibly even all the way and then some, I haven't worked nor seen any such numbers, (in other words, once you control for the effect affluence, Latinos break for Obama as often as white voters or more so- though this seems unlikely given the institutional support in the Latino communtiy for Hillary). So it is very misleading to read the polls the way the talking heads are, (and there were other more obvious reasons to question this wisdom laid out in a convincing Op-Ed in the LA Times a few days back).

If Obama is going to do well in a week's time, he will need to figure out a way to take some of the working class vote away from the Clintons. Skim All The Kings Men, pull a Romney and switch up from the suit, something. My guess is that the campaigns will just fall back on the obvious- look for plenty of fireworks in the debate...

You're wrong about who started the shucking and jiving race conversation. But don't take my word for it. Here are the Hillary hating New York Times Editorial Board the morning of Hillary's victory in NH, before any memo, or any word on the subject whatsoever from Obama:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/opinion/09wed1.html?scp=1&sq=unite+really+this&st=nyt

Mrs. Clinton ran an angry campaign in New Hampshire, and polls showed that voters noticed. She won narrowly, but came perilously close to injecting racial tension into what should have been — and still should be — an uplifting contest between the first major woman candidate and the first major African-American candidate.

In the days before the voting, Mrs. Clinton and her team were so intent on talking about how big a change a woman president would be — and it surely would — that some of her surrogates even suggested that it would be a more valuable change than an African-American president. Mrs. Clinton managed to energize the women’s vote in New Hampshire to win the contest, but the Democratic Party should be celebrating its full diversity, a refreshing and notable difference from the field of Republican contenders.

In Mrs. Clinton’s zeal to make the case that experience (hers) is more important than inspirational leadership (Mr. Obama’s), she made some peculiar comments about the relative importance of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson to the civil rights cause. She complimented Dr. King’s soaring rhetoric, but said: “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ... It took a president to get it done. ”

Why Mrs. Clinton would compare herself to Mr. Johnson, who escalated the war in Vietnam into a generational disaster, was baffling enough. It was hard to escape the distasteful implication that a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change. She pulled herself back from the brink by later talking about the mistreatment and danger Dr. King faced. Former President Bill Clinton, who seems to forget he is not the one running, hurled himself over the edge on Monday with a bizarre and rambling attack on Mr. Obama.

Mr. Clinton has generally been a statesman as ex-president, and keeping up this sort of behavior will undermine his credibility and ability to do more good.

We understand, and usually admire, Mrs. Clinton’s determination. Allowing her team’s wearyingly familiar strong-arm instincts to take over would be damaging for the Democrats in the fall, no matter who gets the nomination. Polls in Iowa and New Hampshire show that Democratic voters liked all of their candidates — they simply chose one. It would be a mistake for a politician whose unfavorable ratings across the nation have long been stuck in the 40 percent range to erase that good feeling about her party.

But credit for the Clinton campaign for duping their supporters, yet again. I suppose you'll have it that Obama's campaign was at fault for Bill deciding to compare his candidacy to Jesse Jackson. Please the court, support your candidate through open eyelids.