This post was primarily spurred by the inability to comment directly on Josh's latest post, which attempts to prove that Kentucky, and by geographical extension Ohio and Indiana, are more racist than the average state.
Race, as we all know, is almost impossible to discuss without offending someone, or being labelled racist.  Perception often seems to make all the difference - for example, the 90% of black voters who support Barack are expressing 'racial pride', apparently, while the 10% of white Democrats who say they don't vote for Barack because of race are racists.

Three things really annoyed me about Josh's post.  Firstly, he says that
"Kentucky itself isn't that big a deal since it will almost certainly go Republican in November"
even though, as he points out, the latest poll shows Hillary and McCain neck-and-neck at 46-48%.

Secondly, he tries to use this Kentucky polling to explain away
Obama's loss in PA, and possible loss in Indiana, as being due only to a racist vote (even though exit polls showed that more African
Americans cast a race-based vote for Barack, than whites cast a race-based vote for Hillary).

Finally, although race, inevitably, became an issue in this election, to focus solely on it to explain why Obama isn't winning, is to ignore the big elephant of misogynism, which equally can explain why Hillary is losing.

The state that perhaps set the tone for this whole primary is Iowa, where Obama scored his surprise win.  It's also a state that apaprently has the infamy of never having elected a woman to a senior political position.  I'm guessing it may
never have voted for an African American either; however, as a proportion of Iowa state population, that's not as good evidence of underlying bigotry (2.5% black, 51% female).

So what's the point of this post?  Racism sucks, as does misogyny, and I'm not commenting on whether one is worse than the other.
Trying to explain away a black candidate's losses, and potential losses, as being due to race
, however, is as flawed an idea as explaining a woman candidate losing because she's a woman.  But if you're going to try, talking about only one without mentioning the other is evidence of a bias of your own.

By Josh's standards, all those caucus states that voted 2-1 for Obama must have been exercising their misogyny.  In  fact, in Nebraska, they voted 68-32 in the primary to Obama.  
In the general, it's a tie with Obama 42- McCain 45.  Hillary-McCain, however, is 30-57.
This is an identical  situation to the one he described in Kentucky, so by his thinking misogyny can be the only cause.

So let's balance things up a bit, OK?  It's fine to have an opinion, but when it makes your analysis sloppy, you cease to be a good reporter.