It's Saturday morning and I'm watching you on MSNBC's Morning Joe on the morning of the SC Primary. I sense that you are solidly in Clinton camp, and that is fine.

But Joan, I cannot believe you are that myopic that you cannot see how the Clintons have deftly manipulated the discussion of Barack Obama's candidacy towards race. You spoke of African Americans being "over-sensitive" about the race cards being played by the Clintons. In particular, you spoke about how you, David Schuster and Mika Brzenzski spoke on the morning after NH and the 3 of you "didn't get" that black Americans would see Hillary's comments as "dissing" MLK. You probably didn't get the subtle dig about Obama's candidacy either. You want to believe Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" meant Iraq, when his "This whole thing..." comment was clearly about the whole Obama phenomenom. You are so quick to believe the most consummate liars in America. The willingness to ignore the obvious is almost painful to watch.

Let me suggest that if the panels of pundits you sit on were more racially diverse with African Americans who are not afraid of speaking their minds directly, you would get it. Far too many white Americans believe that the way to resolve the racial divide in the country is to avoid talking about it. You pretend you didn't hear what is so clearly audible.

Let me say it directly: The Clintons have manipulated and nutured a racially tinged storyline which speaks to "skittish" whites in SC (and across the country). In their efforts to bolster Hillary, they have played to their natural base: not African Americans, but conservative white Democrats.

The Clintons do employ a "say anything, win at any cost" strategy. And if winning means playing the race card, they are most happy to do it, even if they pull it from the bottom of a marked deck.

Perhaps spending more time with some African Americans might broaden your view, Joan.

I think I did hear you suggest that there was some issue of sensitivity (I won't apply quotes here, so that I just paraphrase the conversation) that was laid at the feet of Black folks. To my ears -- and perception is the crux about which I am speaking -- you seemed to give the benefit of the doubt to the Clintons.

Earlier on Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough and Jim Clyburn (D-SC) agreed that the Clintons have established a dynamic that has a direct, disturbing, and disappointing racially-charged component to it. (To wit, both Scarborough and Clyburn agreed that the underlying message of the MLK/LBJ flap was the suggestion that although both Black men were inspiring, it took a white person to do the job. That inherent in that message is one of white superiority.)

I got the feeling that you were saying, you just couldn't "tune in" the racial element playing out. And because you don't hear it, it isn't happening.

I feel your remarks play into the narrative that because white ears are not attuned to the pitch of the racial remarks the Clintons deliver, it wasn't said, and secondly, when African Americans complain about what they hear as "racially tinged" they are charged with being "over-sensitive."

It is clear that we fall on opposite sides of this fence: I have no desire to return to the 90s, the 80s, the 70s, the 60s, the 50s, or the 40s... not 1960, not 1860. I look at the Clinton years and see mediocrity. I do not see Bill or Hillary Clinton as some singular transformative figure(s). I see the Clintons' "scorched earth" tactics as petty and divisive, true to their character.

Mr. Holt and Mr. Sellars -- extremely articulate and on point with their comments (and I watched them both) -- contradict, in my humble opinion, what you said. (I also note that you weren't on the panel with either Holt or Sellars when you made your comments. There was no one there to challenge you on your statements.)

The Clintons interjected "race" into this election because doing so saves their behinds. It is not being "over-sensitive" that motivates people like me to call out the Clintons and their enablers in the MSM on their divisive tactics, however slyly they choose to play.

We disagree in a manner that is not disagreeable. But I will be listening even more closely to you when I see you on the tube.

Hillary Clinton dropped like a rock in South Carolina, and it was due primarily to African Americans -- and about 66% pf white voters (26%, Obama and 40%, Edwards) -- rejecting the divisive politics spewed by the Clintons -- primarily Bill.

The last cheap shot from Clinton, the Mister, came when he was asked a question about the campaign which had nothing to do with the person he included in his answer. Now, I know many of you have under-developed sensors for this kind of race-baiting thing, but clearly there are voters who heard him loud and clear and rejected his means and methods.

To me, the bashing is fair, should be piled on high, and delivered with prolonged criticisms of both himself and his wife, the Senator. Frankly, I hope the Clintons continue to travel down this road. It is one that has revealed their true character and motives.