ARGHHH! I will post the remainder as a comment. I think this game is rigged to permit only long posts accusing HRC of nefarious wrongdoing!

The argument posits that Clinton has predicated her campaign on a pitch to white voters’ prejudice. Her apparent success among blue collar, less-educated whites, the creation of a near monolithic “white vote” in favor of Hillary, is seen as confirmation of this strategy.

Put another way, these posters are saying is that Clinton supporters are either (a) supporting a racist candidate (or to put it more gently, a candidate perfectly willing to appeal to our most base racist instincts), or (b) doing so because of appeals, direct or indirect, to racial prejudice. This is an extraordinarily serious and, yes, divisive charge – one that in its appalling condescension does more to poison race relations and damage the Democrats’ prospects for success this Fall than any of the trifling instances of alleged race-baiting on the part of the Clinton campaign. The fact that these divisive attacks are coming from Democratic supporters of a candidate whose campaign is based upon a promise of reconciliation and against the politics of distraction is painfully ironic.

In Philadelphia, Obama spoke of the ways both blacks and whites misread each other when they fail to see beyond their own racially tinged perceptions. Yet these posts fall into the same trap, ascribing racist motives to whites who for whatever reason choose to support a candidate other than Obama. Yes, there is undeniably a small group of voters who would never vote for a black candidate for President (oh no, am I, like Ed Rendell, a racist for saying that?), just as there is a group, probably larger according to most polls I’ve seen, who wouldn’t vote for a woman. But has anyone who subscribes to this theory given thought to the notion that the mythic white voter we’re talking about (blue collar HS grads to oversimplify) identifies more with HRC's brass-knuckle, retail politics than Obama's message of reform? That this voter aligns him or herself more closely with HRC's more hawkish foreign policy than Obama’s? That this voter acknowledges and appreciates the accomplishments of Bill Clinton’s administration? That this voter may be a little more suspicious of a relatively inexperienced newcomer on the national stage and favors a candidate who has "paid her dues." I think not. It’s easier to say this voter is being manipulated by racist appeals.

Soo too, these arguments undermine Obama’s message of hope and reconciliation – the very premise of his campaign. If Obama is going to broaden his coalition to attract these voters, accusing them of supporting a racist candidate is a really bad place to start. Dismissing the votes of a core Democratic constituency as racially motivated, rather than based on the messages and backgrounds of the candidates, is a greater threat to the coalition desperately needed to prevail in the next election than the trifling compendium of racial slights you have assembled. They do no more to advance the Democratic agenda both candidates stand behind than the equally destructive and misguided furor over Reverend Wright.

Finally, the claims are particularly appalling when directed at the Clintons, a couple who, for all their failings, have acknowledged the continuing destructive force of racism in our society and actively sought to mitigate its effects and contribute to greater racial understanding (some time ago, a poster here linked to several of Bill Clinton's speeches on race in which he made many of the same points as Obama in his moving and nuanced speech in Philadelphia).

Before tossing off such serious charges, I urge Obama supporters to take their candidate at his word during a January debate: "What I am absolutely convinced of is that everybody here is committed to racial equality—has been historically."

Note: While I would like to present a point by point refutation of the alleged examples of Clintonian race-baiting, time does not permit. If anyone reads this, maybe I will do so.

Thanks for expressing a much-needed viewpoint on this profoundly nasty site.

Don't take it personally if it disappears, however. If it does drop off the list, you should retitle it and post again. Call it something like "Articleman Is Wrong." Or "Are All Obama Supporters Race-Baiting Sexist Trolls?" Or "Low-Information White Indiana Voters Join Hillary in Murder-Suicide Pact."

You'll get more attention (if not rec's).