Yes, race was a strong factor in determining the outcome of the primaries. Would Obama be the the likely Democratic candidate if he had not recieved about 90 per-cent of the black vote? The answer is NO. To say that race was not a strong factor in the primaries is rediculous.

Thank God for Sean Willentz, who refutes the prejudice against Appalachia. No one seems to understand that in many states, people inclined to racism vote Republican and vote in the Republican primary. In West Virginia, for example, many of those who might be labelled Republican are in fact registered Democrats.

West Virginia and Pennsylvania are no more racist than other states and are likely to go for Obama in November (assuming Obama doesn't write off the Appalachian region.) Other states that went for Obama in the primary are going to go Republican because Democrats there are a liberal minority. I hope someone in the Obama campaign is starting to figure this out.

They're discussing white Democrats. Obama's support among black Americans since the South Carolina primary is not the subject here.

[Sean Wilentz] has been a prominent supporter of Clinton's presidential campaign.

That's putting it mildly.

FWIW, which is nothing, I thought that in between the campaign talking points, he had some interesting thoughts on historical trends, but the other two interviewees made more substantive contributions. In the meantime, enjoy the cage-rattling from people who are rather more unimpressed with Professor Wilentz than am I.

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.

This was a nice little shindig Salon put together. I learned a few things (the data on past "defection" rates) that I didn't know already, and it was heartening to see a bunch of white guys sitting around and talking seriously about white people and race.

Seriously — the Democratic party, and the country at large, has come a long way when a discussion like this can happen out in the open.

And it's also good to see ... I won't say an all-encompassing spectrum of voices but at least a decent continuum in terms of sides in the Hillary-Obama contest. Sean Wilentz stuck to his best, most substantive point, which is that racial prejudice among Appalachian white Democrats isn't substantially greater than it is among working-class white Democrats anywhere else, and nowhere is the effect very substantial.

(His dig about the vast, huge importance of black votes for Obama was totally silly. Black voters would have overwhelmingly switched over to Clinton had Obama not won — at least, if they could get over justified resentment of her "hard working white people" slurs, a factor which was entirely of her own making. Anyway, Wilentz was quickly, deftly, and rightly ignored by the rest of the panelists and the conversation went back to the more appropriate subject of white people.)

Kudos to the panelists and especially to Salon for pulling it together. Let's have more! There are so many issues for Democrats to hash out as we get closer to the convention and a winning platform.

I liked the tone of the discussion. It was more thoughtful and nuanced than one would have expected, and I'm happy for it.

I think race did obviously play a factor--positively and negatively--for Mr Obama. For example, his black support grew strongly when suggestions emerged that the Clintons were racist. Yes, I'm sure there were racists who voted for Clinton partially because of his race (should we be surprised to find there are still racists in the country?) though I'd suggest many would still probably vote for her anyway. I think the idea Hispanics voted by and large for Hillary may have had more to do with Clinton sympathy than it did inherent racism, but even that's not entirely true (a small percentage of Latinos may surely be racist).

So yes, race was a factor. But I think outright racism was probably a fact in a very small group of people, but it was more ambiguously important to a far larger group.

***

And there is another uncomfortable, unavoidable, and inexhaustible question: what role did gender play with males in the election?

It's as fair a question as the one Slate concentrates on here, and only a fair treatment of it (like this debate) would be helpful.