I'm going to be up front with you. I'm a white guy who's for Obama. And I'll admit that in addition to the principal appeal of Obama--that unlike any candidate in recent memory, he seems sincere and smart--the fact that he is black does probably add to what makes him interesting. He's a great orator, he's charismatic, he's astonishingly candid and "real" in his comments and demeanor, and of course he went to Hahvahd and Yale--but the fact that he's a black man does contribute some additional degree of interest to his overall appeal. And for blacks, it's no secret that they're justifiably proud of him. Why shouldn't they be?

As for Clinton, I do truly hate to say this. But there's no getting around a lot of the overtly racist comments from some people (not all!) in Appalachia and the Rust Belt. (Sorry to you Rust Belters out there, but I don't know what else to call your region. Eastern Midwest?) I recall one story from the New York Times about Levittown and how a lot of people there admitted they couldn't support a black president. And I think there was one here on Salon quoting someone who said "I just don't like black people much."

Now I know it's not fair to extrapolate that to a huge degree and presume that some massive portion of the HRC camp supports her because she's white and Obama is black. But it's also false to pretend that there isn't a small but significant number of people who think that way.

I didn't want to admit that. I had previously defended rural America to a lot of urban types. I had gotten tired of the usual sterotypes about West Virginia. But I do think that this primary has illustrated more starkly that the new divide in America is not North vs. South but urban vs. rural.

At any rate, what matters now is that we go out there and beat the man who is soon to be the most dangerous Angry White Man (well, at least in the top five)--John McCain.