Fully 1 in 5 (white) voters in Kentucky and West Virginia said that race was a factor in their voting decisions. Of those, 90 some odd percent went for Hillary. Irrespective of whether these voters claimed or felt race was the primary or contributing factor of their voting decision, a stated preference for voting on the basis of race forty years after Jim Crow might be considered a big deal to some, (just not our intrepid panel). To Wilentz et al that race was a factor in Appalachia that could in any way be described as significant is entirely implausible. Those nice down home real Americans were just voting 'lunch bucket' issues, (and shame on us insufficiently-self-hating self-hating elites for looking down our noses at them).

Yea, and in the dictionary under obtuse it depicts an individual with his head disappeared up his fundament. If you're going to do this piece, can't we at least approach it remotely honestly? Have any of these people seen any of the legions of video taped interviews coming out of Appalachia given by egregiously bigoted Democrats? Seriously, are your panel so obtuse they require knowledge of the % of voters who showed up in the booth donning a white hood and expressly saying, "I would have voted Barack Obama if he weren't a [racial pejorative]". On what planet is that really what this topic of discussion called for.

This back and forth was really a contest to see who could be the least perceptive whilst maximally shrouding the inquiry in intractably Ken Kesey-esque ooze. Take an illuminating factoid- say the exit poll data from above, or the degree to which white voter preferences for Hillary grew the greater the black population of a state/region (together with the old maxim about how Northern and Southern whites like their blacks), or even what we know unless we are willfully blind about the ubiquity of racial animus- take one of those factoids and pile on as much jargon-laced technocratic manure as possible to be sure that nothing resembling knowledge can result from it. Brilliant stuff here guys.

Quite possibly it would be worth it to start off by acknowledging that voter preferences are irrevocably tied up with their identities and the identities of the candidate. Barack is not a candidate that happens to be black. That is not the case nor ever will it be. Barack is a black man that happens to be a candidate. Hillary is a woman that happens to be a candidate. You cannot extricate the utility voters attach to their choice of candidate from the profile, background and experience of whom it is they are voting for (even allowing that some voters out there are exclusively issue voters, something I don't know that I buy, that is not relevant for this primary where there was so little space between the two candidate's platforms as to be largely irrelevant). So we cannot separate in any one single solitary voter the possibility or even probability that their identities as black man and white women respectively played a part in their decision of whom to vote for, let alone speculate that the data does not support this.

The best way to discuss this without doing violence to the truth is to compile the revealing factoids until a testable hypothesis presents itself. Hand waving away conjectures as 'not supported in the data' via semantic parsing of polling questions and other ridiculously incomplete analysis does no help to anyone.

I'm tired of hearing the Clinton supporter refrain that the only racism in this campaign was the reverse racism against her. It's patently absurd and outrageous. I won't go through the laundry list of instances where the Clinton campaign played to the racist fears, but some were remarkably unambiguous, (e.g. ' he can't shuck and jive his way to the nomination', 'he's a drug dealer', 'he's only where he is because he's black', 'he's Jesse Jackson').

More to the point, one of the Clinton supporters biggest gripes against Obama is that he and his supporters didn't decry the sexism that was targeted at Hillary. Well, pot, kettle black. On this very board, over and over again, we have citation of that very talking point right next to assertions that racism has been banished from the light of day, that it didn't happen, that it wasn't a factor, that the media couldn't get away with it. You're. Having. A. Laugh. Please see these iceberg tips:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY04gIruZ4E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjvNSpsPu1k

The race issue has loomed large in this primary, and has been used in an (in many cases very successful) attempt to play upon white fears of blacks. And yet Hillary supporters have and continue to actively deny that, even as they complain bitterly that Obama supporters are the ones looking to benefit from such social disease. It's time to set the record straight.

The only spin of the phrase shuck and jive is one that doesn't concede its racial context, something I won't dignify by taking seriously. In any case Mr./Ms. White Man's burden, my post was to aggrieved Hillary supporters with whom I can empathize, not Republican trolls or Democrat bigots posing as said. Frankly, I'll be elated if all you inadequate white folk vote McCain. It's going to make the inevitable victory all the more sweet.