This originated as a comment to Billy Glad’s recent post (currently residing on the recommended list).  At the suggestion of another commenter and Billy himself I have retooled it slightly and am posting it here for all to ignore.  The question Billy asks (as mythical spokesperson for the Clinton campaign (would that their actual spokespeople did as good a job as he) is how can Obama win the race without the support of working class voters.  By framing the issue in a race-neutral manner, Billy, I believe, tries to avoid the fury of those in the Obama camp who have accused the Clinton campaign of exploiting racial divisions.  Bob Herbert in todays NYT charges the Clintons with “deliberately” trying to “wreck” the presidential prospects” of the nominee in such a way that has the potential to “undermine the substantial racial progress that has been made in this country over many years.”  Serious charges indeed.      

So while Billy’s effort to reframe the issue is admirable, it  beggars the real problem.  There are deep divisions in the Democratic Party, including class and education, but it blinks reality not to put race at the top of the list – as this primary season has exposed.  It's no secret that during the past several primaries, Obama has overwhelmingly carried the African American vote while Clinton has won whites by fairly substantial margins. It's also no secret that Clinton has done well among the so-called "working class whites." Thus follows the ballyhooed made-for-tv confrontation between Donna Brazile (who needs those white blue-collar voters and hispanics anyway?) and Paul Begala (you can't win with African Americans and eggheads).

You can't turn on the TV or pick up a newspaper without some commentator talking about Obama's difficulty connecting with working class whites.  Some may quibble with the extent of this phenomenon, citing polls that show Obama’s support among whites, but I’d say it’s hard to deny its existence altogether.  Others have said that Obama can redraw the electoral map of the past several elections that have turned, to significant extent, on these so-called swing voters, a/k/a Reagan Democrats.  I'd be very wary of this strategy.  Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan are all critical if the Democrats are to win in November.     

Seen in this light, Hillary’s apparent success reaching out to these voters cannot be ignored.  Her strength among these groups may have made her a stronger candidate in the general election.  Unfortunately for her, she didn’t persuade enough primary voters/caucus-goers to her side. At this point, the only scenarios under which she could win the nomination would leave her so damaged it's hard to imagine her winning the general.  

I am not one to casually accuse the Clintons, who have done much to improve race relations in this country, of deliberately plying a “southern strategy.”  But I also must concede that in hyping this strength, particularly her recent clumsy (to be charitable) pronouncements tend to widen the divide.   

But Obama’s troubles broadening his base can’t be laid entirely at the feet of Clinton’s purported racial politics.  The question now becomes how can Obama fulfill his promise of attracting support across the spectrum.  How can he bridge the racial and class divisions that the primary laid bare?  In my view, there is no question he will need to do so to have any chance of defeating McCain in November. 

After all these observations, I don't have much in the way of solutions. A few are borrowed from Krugman.  A few I’ve thought up on my own. 

1. Let's start by not claiming that Clinton supporters are motivated by racism.  That’s just not a good way to win friends and influence people.   

2. On a similar note, it's not helpful to constantly heap scorn upon HRC - the media does a good enough job of that as it is. It also undermines Obama's post-partisan message.

3. Rather than race, I think Obama’s difficulty in reaching out to swing voters/working class whites has been that his message of reform doesn't connect.  For some, politics is about competing interest groups and the question of what are you going to deliver is paramount.  For this reason, I think Obama needs to focus on his economic message.  The economy looks to be the biggest issue of the election and potentially the greatest benefit to the Dems. Although in the primary, Obama talked about the economy under Clinton and Bush in the same breath, he needs to draw the distinction between the Democratic and Republican records.

4. Obama needs to reach out to Hillary - yes, that's right, the devil herself - and she must actively support his campaign to reassure voters who are anxious about the relative newcomer.   His choice of VP who brings solidity and experience, someone who can "deliver," may go a long way here. 

Finally, let me add that I believe Obama has a better chance of attracting the so-called white working class vote than either Kerry or Gore because he conveys an authenticity they seemed to lack (as campaigners, I'm not talking about them personally) and because the Republicans are just so damned unpopular right now. Despite all the division, it's still the Dems' race to lose.

Disclaimer:  I have not spoken with a single working class white voter in the preparation of this entry. 

With Obama having all but sewn up the Dem nomination, speculation now turns toward who will get the nod for the second spot. Having little left to argue over, this is sure to become the next hot topic of the day. Should it be Hillary? Hegel? Richardson? Sebelius? Edwards II? Traditionally, when looking for a Veep, candidates have sought to balance the ticket, making up for some perceived deficit in their own support or hoping the selection helps deliver a state or region where the nominee appears weak. Bill Clinton upended that reasoning with his selection of Gore, another moderate southern Democrat, although one with experience in the federal government he lacked. On the other hand, Kerry’s pick of Lieberman, a closet Republican, didn’t help all that much. Bearing all this in mind, I have come up with a modest list of the criteria Obama should use to make this critical decision. In the interest of balancing the ticket, the VP nominee should be:
 
**  White
**  Foul mouthed
**  Old
**  Female
**  High School Grad
**  Blue Collar
**  Catholic (or maybe Jewish?)
**  With distinguished military experience
**  Southern or Southwestern
**  Fiercely partisan
**  Supported the war (preferably without apology)
 **  Willing to say or do anything to win

Please feel free to add to this list or make suggestions based on these criteria.

Only a small portion of my post appeared.  Here's another shot.  
 
I am saddened and dismayed by two recent posts (here and here) greeted by what appears to be near unanimous agreement on these boards that the Clinton campaign has engaged in race baiting.  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. 

I am saddened and dismayed by two recent posts (here and here) greeted by what appears to be near unanimous agreement on these boards that the Clinton campaign has engaged in race baiting.  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.