Here is how the AAPOR defines the Bradley effect on page 53 of the report:

the tendency for respondents to report a preference for a black candidate (Obama) but vote instead for a white opponent.

And here is what their extensive and rigorous report found (pages 53-54):

Several compelling pieces of evidence suggest that the New Hampshire estimation errors were probably not caused by the “Bradley effect” – or the tendency for respondents to report a preference for a black candidate (Obama) but vote instead for a white opponent. A meta-analysis by Hopkins (2008) indicates that while the Bradley effect did undermine some state-level polls in previous decades, there is no evidence for such an effect in recent years. In the 2008 general election, the very accurate final poll estimates of Barack Obama’s fairly decisive victory over John McCain dispelled suspicion that the Bradley effect was at play during the final weeks of the fall contest. There is also a conspicuous lack of evidence for a Bradley effect in the primary contests outside of New Hampshire. Of the 81 polls conducted during the final 30 days of the Iowa, South Carolina, California, and Wisconsin contests, the vast majority (86%) over-estimated Clinton’s relative vote share, while just 14% over-estimated Obama’s relative vote share. This finding is based on the signed direction of A for each survey.26 Furthermore, as reported in Table 3, poll estimates of Obama’s vote share in New Hampshire were quite accurate – it was only Clinton’s share that was consistently underestimated.

Here is Table 3 (page 14):

In poll after poll Hillary Cinton’s support was undersampled while Obama’s support was correctly sampled. It was not that her supporters lied to pollsters; they were simply not contacted.

Pollster.com offers this summary of the report:

• Given the compressed caucus and primary calendar, polls conducted before the New Hampshire primary may have ended too early to capture late shifts in the electorate’s preferences there.
• Most commercial polling firms conducted interviews on the first or second call, but respondents who required more effort to contact were more likely to support Senator Clinton. Instead of continuing to call their initial samples to reach these hard‐to‐contact people, pollsters typically added new households to the sample, skewing the results toward the opinions of those who were easy to reach on the phone, and who more typically supported Senator Obama.
• Non‐response patterns, identified by comparing characteristics of the pre‐election samples with the exit poll samples, suggest that some groups who supported Senator Clinton–such as union members and those with less education–were under‐ represented in pre‐election polls, possibly because they were more difficult to reach.
• Variations in likely voter models could explain some of the estimation problems in individual polls. Application of the Gallup likely larger error than was present in the unadjusted data. The influx of first-time voters may have had adverse effects on likely voter models.

Hillary’s base of women, blue collar workers, union members, single mothers and the elderly were simply too difficult to contact, while young Obama supporters were always available by telephone. It was not racism or the Bradley Effect that enabled Hillary to win New Hampshire; it was that the pollsters never spoke to her base.

But the media and the Obama campaign had to accuse New Hampshire Democratic Primary voters of racism in order to minimize Hillary’s victory and racialize the race before the South Carolina primary, where the majority of Democratic voters are African-American.

Here is Mickey Kaus of Slate on January 9, 2008:

1. Bradley Effect: It seemed like a nice wonky little point when Polipundit speculated on the Reverse Bradley Effect–the idea that Iowa’s public caucuses led Dem voters to demonstrate their lack of prejudice by caucusing for Obama. Now this is the CW of the hour. Polipundit wrote:

I suspect that Obama may have scored better than he would have in a secret-ballot election, and benefited from a Reverse Bradley Effect.

New Hampshire, of course, is a secret ballot election. Voters might have told pollsters one thing but done another in private.** New Hampshirites I ran into Tuesday night mentioned that the state was very late ratifying the MLK Holiday.

Here is Andrew Kohut in the New York Times on January 10, 2008:

To my mind all these factors deserve further study. But another possible explanation cannot be ignored — the longstanding pattern of pre-election polls overstating support for black candidates among white voters, particularly white voters who are poor.…

Poorer, less well-educated white people refuse surveys more often than affluent, better-educated whites. Polls generally adjust their samples for this tendency. But here’s the problem: these whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews….

In New Hampshire, the ballots are still warm, so it’s hard to pinpoint the exact cause for the primary poll flop. But given the dearth of obvious explanations, serious consideration has to be given to the difficulties that race and class present to survey methodology.

Here is David Kuo of the Huffington Post as votes were counted during the New Hampshire Primary:

Tonight, despite all the talk of how little race matters in this campaign, it is clear that race is still a big deal in bi-racial campaigns. And it has showed up for the first time, in a measurable way, in the 2008 presidential race.

It means that every poll — from exit polls to tracking polls — are absolutely suspect from here on out.

Here are excerpts from MSNBC on the night of the New Hampshire Primary:

ROBINSON: Well, I‘ll tell you what some people will suspect. Here you have polls, you know, the day before the primary showing Obama way ahead. And he finishes, you know, 15 points lower than that. A lot of people will suspect a “Bradley effect.”

You know, Tom Bradley…

SCARBOROUGH: Oh, Tom Bradley. You‘re…

(CROSSTALK)

ROBINSON: Not the Bill Bradley effect. We were talking about Bill Bradley‘s endorsement being, you know, not necessarily the greatest thing. I‘m talking about Tom Bradley, the mayor—African-American mayor of Los Angeles years ago, ran for governor of California. Polls showed him on election eve that he was going to cruise to victory and he lost. And Doug Wilder of—the first…

SCARBOROUGH: Wait, wait, wait, but are you really saying right now that the people of New Hampshire may have—I won‘t say, be racist, but are you saying that they did not want to go in that booth and vote for a black man? …

BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC ANCHOR: I was just going to say, I‘ve been listening to the panel. Number one, the “Bradley effect,” whether people are going to decide it was in effect in this case is very real and talked about among people in the political business. Let‘s not forget the Gantt race in North Carolina few years ago.…

CHUCK TODD, NBC NEWS POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Well, look, you can only go back—you know, and I go back in recent history and you try to find races where you had these gigantic poll shifts, where the final pre-election polls differed so dramatically from the actual result.

And the one thing they all have in common is something that Eugene Robinson brought up earlier, and that is race.

It was Tom Bradley in California governor‘s race in 1982. The polls had him ahead—ahead by a fairly healthy margin over George Deukmejian. He ended up losing.

And Virginia governor, 1989, Doug Wilder had a double digit lead going into the final—in the final weekend. He won by a very narrow 1 point margin.

Harvey Gant, the 1990 Senate race with Jesse Helms—one of the most divisive races, frankly, that this country had on race. That was, again, pre-election polls had Gant ahead, Helms wins.

So you can‘t help but look at that—and particularly you‘ve got to wonder what this sends—the message that this could send to African-American Democrats, who may look at this and say, well, of course, that‘s what happened. You know, a lot of times when I‘ve noticed this and when you talk to African-American Democrats, they sat here and they‘ll see this race stuff a lot quicker than us in white America. And I think that this is—it‘s at least, you‘ve got to explore it. You‘ve got to look at it. History has taught us this—recent history—when it‘s come to dealing with African-American candidates.

Here is Carol Costello, Andrew Kohut and Professor Charles Ogletree on CNN’s Situation Room on January 11, 2008:

I’m Wolf Blitzer.

You’re in THE SITUATION ROOM.

Is the U.S. ready for an African-American president?

Senator Barack Obama’s strong showing so far in this campaign has many saying absolutely, yes. Others, though, say it’s too soon to tell.

Carol Costello has been looking into this story for us — you’ve been talking to a lot of people supposedly knowledgeable on this very sensitive subject.

What are they telling you?

COSTELLO: Well, it is a sensitive subject, isn’t it?

You know, most I talked with today say it is too soon to tell.

Obama seems to have transcended race, but can he in the long run?

Already, critics say Obama’s opponents are trying to create this subtle narrative of racial division. They deny it, but it illustrates how hard it is in this country to take race out of the equation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COSTELLO (voice-over): The Iowa caucus created all kinds of excitement surrounding Barack Obama. His win in a predominantly white state and a strong showing in another seemingly proves it — Obama can transcend race. It’s something Obama has always believed could happen.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If I have your support, if I have your energy and involvement and commitment and ideas, then I am here to tell you yes, we can in ‘08.

COSTELLO: Maybe. But there are those who feel while Iowa and New Hampshire prove Obama can certainly get white votes, it doesn’t mean he can continue the trend — that Obama’s second place finish in New Hampshire, despite polls that had him coming in first, illustrates the undercurrent about race that exists in this country.

Andrew Kohut, in charge of Pew Research, has a theory. He says many of those inclined to vote for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire were poor, uneducated whites who don’t participate in polls and who often don’t vote for blacks.

ANDREW KOHUT, PRES., PEW RESEARCH CTR.: At least race should be considered because we know that the kinds of people drawn to Mrs. Clinton are always the kinds of people who turn down surveys at pretty high rates. We don’t know much about whether the people who we don’t get are like the people that we do get.

COSTELLO: Polls about race are notoriously difficult to analyze. Take this ABC/Washington Post poll conducted before the Iowa caucus. A whopping 88 percent of Americans said race would not matter in choosing a president. But pollsters say you have to take this result with a grain of salt. Few people are willing to tell a pollster they’re racist. It reflects the Bradley effect, after Tom Bradley, a black man who ran for governor in California in 1982. Most polls showed him leading but he lost to a white male candidate.

PROF. CHARLES OGLETREE, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: Ask Tom Bradley when he ran for governor in California. Black man, thought he could win, he didn’t. Ask Harvey Gant in North Carolina. Ask Harold Ford, Jr.

COSTELLO: Look at the stats. There is one black governor in the United States. They are nine women governors. They are 16 senators who are women. And one black man, Barack Obama.

Still, Barack Obama got plenty of votes in New Hampshire and in Iowa, which are both 95 percent white.

You could say that trumps the poll, but there are many more people yet to vote and racial under currents that are so hard to predict.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

And here is the Obama campaign as discussed in an article by Ryan Lizza in the January 21, 2008, edition of the New Yorker:

Did Obama experience a similar fate in New Hampshire? The evidence is murky, but his campaign believes the question is important enough to warrant study. When I asked a senior Obama adviser whether the Bradley effect was a possible explanation for the gap between the final poll numbers, which showed Obama leading by an average of eight points, and the ultimate outcome, he replied, “Definitely.” He added, “If so, then the question is: what’s different between Iowa and New Hampshire? It could be that the socially acceptable thing in front of your neighbor at a caucus could be different than what you do in a secret ballot. Obviously, that’s something we’re going to be trying to figure out as we go forward, primarily through polling. I know people are working on ways of asking questions about getting at people’s attitudes about race. We’re working on this.”

In other words, the Obama campaign cited the Bradley Effect in order to explain a loss, and the sycophantic media repeated the notion again and again and again. Apparently they received the memo from David Axelrod as votes were counted in New Hampshire. Too bad real analysis reveals that the Bradley Effect had no impact on the New Hampshire Primary.

Will CNN apologize? Will MSNBC apologize? Will the New York Times apologize? Will Slate apologize? And is it not a coincidence that after the Obama campaign decided race was the reason he lost the NH primary that the Clintons were accused of racism by the Obama campaign during the South Carolina primary? All of it was debunked in the report released today by the AAPOR. Will Obama and Axelrod apologize to Hillary and Bill Clinton?

I doubt anyone will apologize, for no one in the Obama administration or in the Obamamedia cares about facts. But at least all of us know that those of us who voted for Hillary during the New Hampshire primary and during the other primaries are not racist. Will they apologize to us?

The Obama campaign has had a deliberate strategy of calling the Clinton campaign racist and the media has allowed itself to be led along. Obama himself confessed to this strategy in the Nevada debate when shown a copy of a campaign memo directing campaign workers to use race-bating to defame Hillary Clinton.

January 27, 2008:

Please, just fuck off. Bill Clinton made exactly the right point and Obama’s defenders are playing into the worst of the Right-wing racist tropes, that there is something tainted about successful black candidates who get majority black support.

January 28, 2008:

I’ve spent a good amount of time here on this blog defending HRC against bogus claims of racism, and I’ve smacked The Golden One around for engaging in his own race-baiting, trying to milk liberal white guilt for all it is worth.

There is no person, no campaign, no victory that can justify deliberate use of racial divisions. Leave it to the Republicans to immolate themselves on the pyre of racism come November.

February 2, 2008:

Then begins the long slog towards South Carolina, with the media, the blogosphere and Obama’s campaign screaming at every turn that the Clintons are racists.

March 31, 2008:

My point here is not to promote the Clintons (though I think they deserve it), but to emphasize the way in which they are demonized by their own party. They become the embodiment of the old South, the unrepentant, segregationist South, just as northern blue collar voters who challenge the party orthodoxy are labeled Archie Bunkers.

April 5, 2008:

Here is the challenge to the Democrats – how to cease treating working class whites the eternal “Other” of the party, the roadblock to fulfilling the promise of the nation, and seriously address the ways in which the party will help all Americans live their lives with dignity.

April 28, 2008:

I have seen it put cynically (hell, I have put it cynically myself) that Obama was just promising the (mostly white) comfortable class of the party that he wouldn’t insist on looking at those nasty claims of justice if they would just elect a black dude and redeem their souls.

May 2, 2008

The assault on the Clintons has no basis in policy or political philosophy. It is an attack on uppity white trash who dares to succeed in the world without assimilating into the ruling elite, and for the added insult of being adored by the nation precisely for their common connections.

May 4, 2008:

Hannah Arendt, my favorite political theorist, has been excoriated as a racist for pointing out that integration and post-racial sociality is not such a big deal when the person being integrated is already part of your socio-economic class, remains a numerical minority within your enclave, and is no threat to your social standing or economic power.

May 6, 2008:

Obama’s campaign is certainly doing pernicious race-baiting, but mostly to initimidate critics and shame wavering white voters.

May 8, 2008:

What I’m seeing is an amplified, exaggerated perversion of the lessons, biases and attitudes I encountered in my very liberal college education, things that resonate with me in strange ways, playing on the way I learned to see the world as divided into evil whites, good whites and the oppressed Others we good whites had to free from the evil whites.

May 18, 2008:

I don’t see the Hillary campaign saying a bad word about the voters, even those who vote for her opponents. I don’t see the campaign explaining away their losses because of some flaw or failing in the voters.

May 21, 2008:

Failure to create the conditions under which vast majority of the party will have no doubts that he will serve the interests of the party and be protective of those who dissent from him will leave not just Obama but the party itself in dire straits in the months to come. Riverdaughter has a brilliant post up on The Confluence. You need to go read it all beause it is good in every regard

May 23, 2008:

I’m reading the reports on the mendacious attacks the Bogger Boyz are making on Hillary by completely perverting her comments about RFK.

Rather than weigh in on the current idiocy (which is being handled very nicely by Riverdaughter & Co. over on the Confluence. If you have not read that blog, stop, go there, read and bookmark. I’ll be here when you’re done.)

May 31, 2008:

1. I am not saying in any way shape or form that Larry Johnson is lying about the existence of some video of Michelle Obama. Please. Larry would not do that. A video of some kind exists.

2. If you read his posts closely, Larry does not claim to have seen the video in question himself. I may have missed a post where he did state this, but in the posts I have read, he does not. He was very clear that he has spoken to at least two people who do not know each other, who he trusts completely, and who have attested to the existence of a video.

September 24, 2008:

When Democratic women say “The Obama camp has run a sexist, mysogynistic campaign,” we are told we’re wrong, no such thing, there was not any sexism there, except maybe some from Tweety. When Democratic women say, “No, it’s not his race, it’s his lack of commitment to the programs that matter to us,” we are told that, no, we’re all just racist bitches, and that it’s our fault if he doesn’t win.

September 16, 2008:

The ultimate shadow of Reagan is that you don’t win by defending losers, only by securing the interests of the winners. That is the dark heart beating in the chest of the Unity Democrats. They are done with the losers.

May 2, 2008:

It is the deep guilt of the liberal upper class that we know, every last miserable one of us, that our privilege is due to centuries of white supremacy and to the informal, unspoken, but pervasive advantage our skin color and behavioral patterns gives us in this society. It is our Moby Dick, the whale we pursue obsessively through political seas, frantic to have material proof that we are innocent of the crimes of our nation.

Don’t believe me. Take a look at this sarcastic woman talk about her New Party. And who “Split us into groups” again?

Here’s Donna telling us all about her “New Party”. Check out her snide face and hear her snide voice. Good luck with that Donna. Paul Begala also warns arrogant Donna that she is going to need all the people she is insulting to win this election. Nobody can deny it. We were told to go to hell. Well we don’t plan on doing that, instead we plan to vote.

So now there’s a recent study discussing the very warning given to arrogant ass Donna Brazile, the one who was going to”Change the Demographics of her “New” Democratic Party. Now she needs us. We’ll be back when people like Donna are no longer in charge, for starters. We are going to take back our party. Again. This is not the first time elite socialist fringe snobs tried to hijack our party. It seems the one thing our party learns from history is how to repeat their mistakes over and over and over again.

The majority of this party is not interested in busting their butts at work and then “sharing” their gains with people who don’t. The majority of this party is not interested in sexism and misogyny. The majority of this party does not belong to MoveOn. The majority of this party is not interested in allowing dependent children, off-the-cliff radicals, old hippies stilll on the bong, left over cranks from the failed AmeriKKKan Socialist, Communist, Marxist and Stalinist parties pick presidents.

And the majority of the Democratic Party will NOT be staying home on November 4, Donna. Get that idea out of your head.

A study surprise! reveals that Barack Obama needs us now. Of course, the Race Card has to be played with respect to the “White Vote”. Once more, my party wants to ignore the impact of PUMA at their own peril. So be it.

But it’s pretty safe to say that playing the Race Card every five minutes hasn’t exactly endeared white people to the Obama candidacy. Threatening people and calling them racist has backfired. Refusing to recognize that there are plenty of reasons why people will never vote for Barack Obama that have little to do with his color. Like sexest piggism and socialism, for starters. His rude, threatening and savage followers would be right up there on the list too. People don’t like to feel threatened. And people don’t like to have real issues ignored and twisted into a “Race Card” discussion. It not only ticks them off, but it’s been done and overdone so much by Obama and his surrogates, that the effect is now just a lot of Eye Rolling when it’s heard again. And again. And again.

There are plenty of reasons why many Democrats aren’t interested in Barack Obama. The report mentions the “White working class”. Those are those Bitter Hicks With Guns. Does anybody really expect them to forgive Barack Obama for his tasteless, snobby, downright ignorant remark about them at a fundraiser at Billionaire’s Row in San Francisco? Really?

Does anyone really expect all Hillary Clinton supporters to forgive Barack Obama for his attempt to destroy her and his coordinated attacks on her because she is a woman? Really? Really? How arrogant can you get?

Does anyone really expect all Jews in America to rush to the polls for Obama when every Jidadist in the Middle East has endorsed him? Really?

Does anyone really expect all of us well-educated Hillary supporters to forget being constantly referred to as “Downscale” and “Low Information”? Really?

Does anyone really expect women to give him their undying support after his disgusting behaviors toward women in this campaign? Really? Really?

Does anyone really expect everyone in America to forget Reverend Wright’s disgusting remarks? Does anyone really expect every Italian-American to vote for a guy whose 20-year pastor calls them Garlic-Noses? Really? Really?

Does anyone really expect that Seniors, who have lived long enough to recognize BS when they see it, are endeared en masse by Barack Obama, whose followers have consistently insulted them as “old people”?

Has anyone heard Barack Obama say one helpful thing to Native Americans?

Does anyone really expect all Latinos in Florida to worship a man who wants to talk to Castro with no pre-conditions? Really?

Does anyone really expect all gays and lesbians to be in love with Barack Obama when he refused to have his photo taken with the Mayor of San Francisco? Really?

If all of these people happen to be white, then the real thing the report reveals is that Barack Obama, his surrogates and his followers have insulted plenty of white people in this election season. In droves. The Democrats might like to continue the “Race Card” with their studies, but the truth is, their loss among Democrats consist of the people they insulted and decided they didn’t need any longer. And that’s not going to go away.

Here’s Politico’s take on the report:

In an election year where Barack Obama pledged to change the electorate, the centrist Democratic Leadership Council has weighed into the debate with a detailed report arguing it will be difficult for Obama to earn enough African American and youth support to compensate for enduring Democratic failures with white voters.

The report, titled “Who are the swing voters,” finds that the party must make historic inroads with working class whites in order to create a sustainable presidential majority.

It’s hardly news that the Democratic Party has struggled with white voters. Democrats have not won a majority of whites since 1964. Since 1980 though, Democrats have struggled to even remain competitive among whites, particularly men, and that has allowed Republicans to dominate the last quarter century of presidential politics.

The DLC set out in its analysis, an early draft of which was provided to Politico, to investigate the most influential swing blocs for Democrats. It concluded that slight but significant gains with working class whites— who constitute four in ten voters and were defined by the DLC as white high school graduates without a four-year college degree—is the best means to enlarge the Democratic coalition.

“There has been so much emphasis on new entrants in the electorate, and this report is historic and not predictive, but history tells us it would be an unusual circumstance if we witnessed a massive shift in the electorate,” the DLC analysis reads.

The report calculates that a 10 percent increase in black voter turnout amounts to a 1-percentage point uptick in the overall electorate, assuming all other groups remain constant.

That means that if the black voting rate rises from 60 percent to 67.2, the level of whites as measured by the Census Bureau, it amounts to 1.7 million votes— less than George W. Bush’s margin of victory in 2004.

“None of this means that the 2008 election could not be decided because of a radical shift in the electorate—by a dramatically increased turnout among critical constituencies or by a sharp shift in party identification, for example,” the report reads, “But historical voting patterns say that would be an unusual occurrence.”

The DLC study looked at the exit polls of the last five presidential elections as well as the 2006 midterm election.

The report, authored by Al From and Victoria Lynch, described black voters, self-identified liberals, and “strongly pro-choice” voters as the most influential legs of the Democratic coalition.

The DLC calculated that about four in ten voters in presidential elections are part of this Democratic base. John Kerry won 80 percent of these voters, meaning Democrats only amounted to about a third of the electorate. That number will likely be higher in 2008 as Democrats enjoy a newfound party identification advantage, though one that multiple polls show lessened in late summer.

The report strongly suggests, however, that it will be difficult for the Obama campaign to win if he does not improve Democrats’ appeal to the white working class.

The report also paints two blocs of working class whites:

“A typical male voter in that category will likely be between 30 and 59 years old, live in a suburb or small town in the South or Midwest, and be married with no children living at home. He’s likely to be a Republican or independent, moderate or conservative, not a member of a labor union, pro-life, and in favor smaller government. Finally, he’s most likely to be Protestant but not a weekly churchgoer.”

He almost wrecked Barack Obama’s presidential dreams, and now firebrand pastor Jeremiah Wright has helped destroy a Dallas church worker’s marriage – and her job, The Post has learned.

You’ve seen the disgusting video of Reverend Wright, in a Sunday sermon, doing the the “hump” to suggest that Bill Clinton “done us wrong”:

The background story to Wright’s second marriage calls into serious question Wright’s “right” to preach to anyone. Here’s more from the Post:

Wright has been married to his second wife, Ramah, for more than 20 years.

The preacher reportedly wooed Ramah away from her first husband in the 1980s, when the couple came to marriage counseling at Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Now let’s see more reminders of Obama’s Reverend Wright. Remember this “America’s Chickens Come Home to Roost”?

The 37-year-old Elizabeth Payne admits to the affair but gives few other details.

Elizabeth Payne, 37, said she had a steamy sexual affair with the controversial, racially divisive man of the cloth while she was an executive assistant at a church headed by a popular Wright protégé.

She has since basically been excommunicated from the church, fired from her paid position in the church, and divorced. Her husband dashed to divorce court after the affair was discovered. She did have this to say about her life post-Wright:

Elizabeth Payne said she has been banished by Haynes and the flock at Friendship-West.

“I’m not a member of the congregation anymore; I’m not even allowed on the premises,” she said.

And she had this to say about her affair with Wright, her job and divorce:

“I was involved with Rev. Wright, and that’s why I lost my job and why my husband divorced me,” Payne said.

She refused to reveal when the adulterous affair started or how she met Wright.

But fellow churchgoers at Friendship-West “found out about the affair in the spring,” Payne said.

At the time, she was secretary to the Rev. Frederick Haynes III, a longtime Wright disciple.

In April, Payne organized a series of Texas public appearances by Wright, 67. Weeks before, Obama had disavowed his preacher of 20 years after Wright’s anti-government rants came to light.

“Liz was by Rev. Wright’s side day and night during those days,” a church source said.

“It’s all true,” said Payne, adding that she has filed a wrongful-dismissal claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to get her job back.

In an interesting twist, Wright gave a sermon about trouble in relationships at a church in New Jersey. Here is more on that:

“There’s no such thing as a problem-free relationship,” he told a packed Elmwood United Presbyterian Church. “In life, you’ll have unexpected problems.”

Here are his words minus a controversial statement.

Payne’s husband, Fred Payne, 64, said he learned of the affair in late February, when he discovered e-mails between his wife and Wright.

“There must have been about 80 of them, back and forth,” he said. “Wright said things like he was going to leave his wife for Elizabeth.”

And now we need to be reminded of Obama on his spiritual mentor….

And we know that Reverend Wright/Wrong became a albatross around Obama’s neck. Obama did what he always has — he denied any knowledge of the sermons — the same way he denies responsibility for anything his campaign does!

And this is the man we want leading our country? Not!

Obama your “chickens have come home to roost!”

Dean had this to say, “Our party has been a no-majority party for a long time. The fact is that the Democratic Party is made up of lots of different people” and “If you look at folks of color, even women, they’re more successful in the Democratic Party than they are in the white — excuse me — in the Republican Party.”

And here are Dean’s words recorded for posterity’s sake:

I will “use all of my present and future resources to benefit [the Black]community first and foremost

Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites…it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first

there is a distinctive Black culture different from White culture.

[A] Black person may have all White friends and prefer these friends and their activities to those with Blacks without the individual believing that he/she is White

Are these the long-awaited excerpts from Michelle Obama’s “whitey” rant? No, these gems of racial “tolerance” come from her Princeton thesis. As the Obama campaign unleashes its Orcs to stifle dissent and cover-up Michelle’s greatest hits, we believe an analysis of Michelle Obama’s public statements and writings offer plenty of material to understand her views on race, with or without the audio tape.

Like archaeologists uncovering artifacts to decipher a culture, we view Michelle’s extant words as a crystallization of a worldview which can be examined to understand her views on race in America. Michelle Obama wrote the quotes above in her Princeton thesis on race and in it acknowledges that that she is influenced by and utilizes the definition of black “separationism” offered by Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton in their 1967 screed Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America. She writes:Stokely Carmichael guided Michelle Obama’s thesis on race? This is very important. Carmichael was not a mainstream academic source in his times. He was not the Henry Louis Gates, Jr. of the 1960s, writing scholarly, brilliant works on black America. In fact, Carmichael, the Honorary Prime Minister of the Black Panther Party, espoused a violent black separatist philosophy which was diametrically opposed to Dr. King’s and the Civil Rights Movement’s struggle for integration and equality.

In his 1966 article entitled What We Want, in the New York Review of Books, Stokely Carmichael wrote, “about plots to ‘get Whitey‘” saying that “Black people don’t want to ‘get whitey,’” and in a 1969 article entitled Toward Black Liberation, Carmichael talks about racial incidents as “Git Whitey” “sensationalism.” Christopher Hitchens writes:

I remember poor Stokely Carmichael quite well. After a hideous series of political and personal fiascos, he fled to Africa, renamed himself Kwame Toure after two of West Africa’s most repellently failed dictators, and then came briefly back to the United States before electing to die in exile. I last saw him as the warm-up speaker for Louis Farrakhan in Madison Square Garden in 1985, on the evening when Farrakhan made himself famous by warning Jews, “You can’t say ‘Never Again’ to God, because when he puts you in the ovens, you’re there forever.”

Consider for a moment that Michelle Obama built her thesis on the philosophy of a man who believed that “Before a group can enter the open society, it must first close ranks.”

Next consider her statement that she will “use all of my present and future resources to benefit [the Black] community first and foremost.” [Emphasis added]

Lastly, remember that the Obamas spent 20 years as active students of Jeremiah Wright’s odious racist rants. Think about that in mathematical terms. If they attended church for two hours weekly, that’s 2,000 hours of Jeremiah Wright, or one full year of working at a job 40 hours a week. That’s a lot of “United States of KKK-A.” The Obamas were, until recently, members of a church which describes itself in explicitly racial language:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. [emphasis added]

In other words, the Obamas were active participants in a black separatist church, a church which explicitly emphasized skin color over salvation, heritage over faith, one group of people instead of the universality of spiritual needs.The ideology espoused from this church may sound innocuous to Obama’s supporters. But it’s an important question, in a diverse nation of 300 million. Do we want a couple in the White House whose stated influences include Stokely Carmichael and Jeremiah Wright instead of Martin Luther King? Or someone who said:

For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country

Really, Michelle? Is it because Barack is so wonderful that only now you’re proud of your country or is there another reason you’re proud for the first time? Please tell us the reason. Or as Christopher Hitchens asks about Obama:

If there is a reason why the potential nominee has been keeping what he himself now admits to be very bad company—and if the rest of his character seems to make this improbable—then either he is hiding something and/or it is legitimate to ask him about his partner.

Why has Obama’s lemonade never turned into lemons sour enough to make everyone (and that includes the media) sit up and take notice? It always felt like a “tipping point” was just around the corner, but it never quite spilled over.

Was it because Hillary Clinton’s campaign (as well as her supporters) were likely to be labeled as racist or playing “dirty politics” if they made any critical comment or asked the hard questions about his experience and background?

When even some of the most liberal blogs deleted the posts and banned their creators for the slightest disapproval of Obama, we all learned the hard way that free speech where you might most expect it does not exist.

Before the Republicans take full hold of this pitcher’s handle, Obama’s supporters should encourage him to give some very straight and complete answers to some of the puzzling questions suggested by what all is floating around in the lemonade.

Racial attitudes pose challenge for Obama

“I don’t think our country is ready for a black president,” Susick, who is white, said in an interview in the paint store where she works. “A black man is never going to win Pennsylvania.”

Now if we were in campaign mode you would see Axelrod, Plouffe or Jackson point out that the person making the comment was just a racist and therefore could be dismissed. But thankfully we aren’t in campaign mode and people like Susick are allowed to speak their mind without being labeled as something they are not.

More troubling is the statistic that won’t go away. No matter how much money and bullshit the Obama people try to throw at it.

In the April 22 primary, Susick voted for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who carried Pennsylvania by 10 percentage points. Perhaps more troubling for Obama, one in four Clinton’s backers told exit pollsters they would vote for McCain if Obama were the nominee; an additional 17 percent said they would not vote at all.

Look at this closely. 25% of Hillary supporters said they would vote for McCain and another 17% said they wouldn’t vote at all. That is a whopping 42% of Hillary supporters that WILL NOT support Obama. You might call that a significant statistic.

More worrisome are longtime Democrats who backed Clinton in April but are threatening to abandon the party now that she is not the nominee.

Rose Iezzi, who lunched recently with two friends at a Greensburg cafe, is one. All three women are middle-aged, work for an accountant and admire Clinton. But only Iezzi took a hard stand against Obama.

“I think he’s a snake oil salesman,” she said. “He’s a little too slick and smooth.”

“He just doesn’t appeal to me, and not because of race, definitely,” she said in an interview in which race had not been mentioned.

In fact for all the attempts to call the people that will not support Obama racists, the facts tell another tale. A tale that doesn’t fit in to well with the lies the Obama camp would have you believe. Despite the exit poll claims we were spoon fed by the Obamedia, the truth tells us something else entirely.

In interviews with 40 Pennsylvanians across three counties that Clinton won by big margins, only one person indicated opposition to Obama simply because of his race.

Sounds a little less troubling than we were initially led to believe. Some estimates had the percentage as high as 20%. So much for the reliability of exit polls despite the DNC’s illegitimate reliance on them.

And if this was just Pennsylvania perhaps Obama and the DNC could write it off. As they have so many other things. But the problems in Pennsylvania apparently also resonate in Ohio where Obama not only lost to Hillary but is losing ground to McCain.

Clinton’s supporters still wary of Obama

Harper was impressed by Clinton’s empathy for the struggling middle class and said she would have voted for her this fall. But now that Barack Obama has sewn up the Democratic nomination, Harper isn’t sure whom to support.

Obama’s comments about “bitter” Pennsylvania voters turning to guns and God turned her off, and she’s concerned that Republican John McCain represents a continuation of the Bush administration that she doesn’t think the country can afford.

“Now, I’m kind of in limbo,” Harper, 53, said last week during an interview in Hanging Rock at the Ohio University Southern Child Development Center where she works.

So Bittergate still resonates in Ohio as I am sure it resonates elsewhere. People have not only not forgiven Obama for his comments, they have come to trust him even less recently.

Last week, The Dispatch retraced Clinton’s trip, and in interviews with nearly three dozen people in places she visited, it was clear that although Obama has fans in the region, he has work to do to win over voters such as Harper.

There is a disconnect that Ohio voters instinctively feel toward Obama. Hillary they got. She touched them, made them feel visible, important. Obama, not so much.

“It was like we meant something to her,” said Chuck Denney, 55, of Gallipolis, who works at a nearby power plant and was having lunch last week at the original Bob Evans restaurant in Rio Grande where Hillary Clinton stopped in February.

But the Obama campaign and their DNC enablers aren’t worrying about Ohio. They have a plan. They honestly think that getting popular governor Ted Strickland to campaign for Obama is all he needs. And Strickland seems to think so too.

The governor said Friday he will encourage Obama to spend time in Appalachia and focus on such “kitchen table issues” as jobs and health care.

“I think if he does that and does it effectively, with my help — and I will help — that the folks in the communities that you’ve just visited will give him an honest hearing,” Strickland said.

But Buckeyes have to ask the pertinent question. Why is it that Obama didn’t reach out to Appalachia before, when he was courting Ohio for the nomination? He instead referred to them as bitter white people that cling to guns and religion.

So, sorry Governor Strickland. As popular as you are and deservedly so, you aren’t going to hoodwink the good people of Ohio into believing Barack Obama suddenly respects hard-working blue collar white people. Because we already know that he does not. Except for when not respecting them gets in his way to power.

These latest revelations, coming just days after Obama’s presumptive coronation as the Democratic nominee, are mere warning shots. More will come, surely. I expect them to dribble out a little at a time. The question is: Will the people that have the authority to do something about it take action before it is too late?

And I can’t say with any sincerity that I am hopeful they will.

The problem is the party itself. 2008 was the year that the party abandoned its principles. It is no longer the party of FDR and shared responsibility. Now, it is the party of wannabe rich libertarian Democrats. It is the party of the Ariana Huffingtons who, dissatisfied with her own party, have decided to steal someone else’s. It isn’t the party that nearly elected Bobby Kennedy. It is the party that is about to write off Appalachia. Good riddance, poor working people! You’re on your own now. It isn’t the party that made social security sacred. It is the party that might very well start tinkering with it …

More from Riverdaughter:

[...]

The problem with Obama and the new Democratic party is that it doesn’t stand for real Democrats. It is yet another strange amalgamation of voters whose self interest was pandered to. In many ways, it is no different than the Republican party of gilded capitalists, religious crazies and neocons. This new Democratic party is made up of young people, libertarians and pretentious status conscious liberals. There is a nasty streak of cynicism in it as well, …

Image grabbed from Bud White’s great, recent story here at No Quarter: “The Neo-Liberal War on Blue-Collar Whites and the Breakup of the Democratic Party ».“

We have seen this before. There is dirt and lies that are circulated in emails and they pump them out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me about it,” Obama said to the McClatchy reporter during a press conference aboard his campaign plane. “That gives legs to the story. If somebody has evidence that myself or Michelle or anybody has said something inappropriate, let them do it.”

Asked whether he knew it not to be true, Obama said he had answered the question.

Huh? Are you kidding me? If it ain’t true say so.

But when a politician tap dances on nuance–Baby it is true. My sources have not backed off. They maintain they have a tape and will drop it on the Dems in the fall. Now if Barack said, “No, and hell no” I would be wondering about my sources. But he punted. He went for the weasel word. The non-denial denial.

It also is curious that the Obama folks put out the word that Michelle didn’t say “WHITEY”. Nope, according to them she said, “WHY DID HE.” Hmmmm. Why would you put that out if the recording of the event did not exist? Then you have the frantic scrubbing of Trinity websites. How about efforts to check the video files of Chicago TV stations? Stymied. The local ABC station says they will only give up a video if there is a subpoena.

So, sure looks to me that there a recording of Michelle’s racist rant exists in the hands of folks working to help elect McCain. Obama is hoping they won’t use it. But if you call what he said a denial then you yourself are in a state of (denial that is).

At no time have I claimed to have the tape or promised to deliver said tape. In fact, I reported that Republicans working on behalf of McCain are desperate to keep this under wraps until Obama is formally nominated in August. Got it?

So as trolls stagger by to taunt and provoke, have pity on them–they cannot read and are devoid of comprehension skills. I guess that’s why they are for Obama. Figures. Meanwhile, with or without said tape, we do know that the Obamas participated for almost 20 years in a church that espoused racism. They supported the race baiter Jeremiah Wright with financial contributions. So enough of the pretense that they were attending a mainstream, vanilla, anodyne Christian church. Au contraire. Non. I believe my sources and believe the tape will appear after August and before November.

At no time have I claimed to have the tape or promised to deliver said tape. In fact, I reported that Republicans working on behalf of McCain are desperate to keep this under wraps until Obama is formally nominated in August. Got it?

So as trolls stagger by to taunt and provoke, have pity on them–they cannot read and are devoid of comprehension skills. I guess that’s why they are for Obama. Figures. Meanwhile, with or without said tape, we do know that the Obamas participated for almost 20 years in a church that espoused racism. They supported the race baiter Jeremiah Wright with financial contributions. So enough of the pretense that they were attending a mainstream, vanilla, anodyne Christian church. Au contraire. Non. I believe my sources and believe the tape will appear after August and before November.

I am not trying to steal thunder from HillBuzz. That blogger is breaking important news. I’m posting the article in full because, having seen what happened to our site, a link to his will kill his server with the flood of traffic. Until Sunday, I was operating on one server. We’re up to four and barely keeping pace. HillBuzz writes at http://hillbuzz.blogspot.com/

What’s on the Michelle Obama Rant Tape?
Here’s what’s known so far:

The Michelle Obama Rant Tape was filmed between June 26th – July 1st 2004 in Chicago, IL at the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition Conference at Trinity United Church: specifically the Women’s Event.

Michelle Obama appeared as a panelist alongside Mrs. Khadijah Farrakhan and Mrs. James Meeks.

Bill Clinton spoke during the Conference, as did Bill Cosby and other speakers, but not at the panel Michelle attended.

Michelle Obama spoke at the Women’s Event, but referenced Bill Clinton in her rant — his presence at the conference was the impetus for her raving, it seems.

For about 30 minutes, Michelle Obama launched into a rant about the evils of America, and how America is to blame for the problems of Africa. Michelle personally blamed President Clinton for the deaths of millions of Africans and said America is responsible for the genocide of the Tutsis and other ethnic groups. She then launched into an attack on “whitey”, and talked about solutions to black on black crime in the realm of diverting those actions onto white America. Her rant was fueled by the crowd: they reacted strongly to what she said, so she got more passionate and enraged, and that’s when she completely loses it and says things that have made the mouths drop of everyone who’s seen this.

The “tape” is a DVD that Trinity United sold on its website, and possibly offered free for download up until March 2008 when Trinity’s site was scrubbed and the DVDs were no longer offered for sale.

This outburst happened just one month before the 2004 Democratic Convention, when Barack Obama delivered the keynote address.

In 2001, Gene Lyons and Joe Conason, both respected journalists of the center-left, co-authored The Hunting of the President, a frightening look at the Right’s conspiracy to destroy the Clintons. However, it is more frightening still to realize that the neo-liberals are putting to use the same tactics to destroy Hillary. The RFK assassination “issue” comes to mind as a particularly ugly example.

Ironically, Lyons and Conason exemplify the split within the Democratic Party. Conason suggests that Hillary Clinton is channeling George Wallace (an analogy used here first but accurately applied to Obama), and he “worries” about this harming Hillary’s reputation. On the other hand, Lyons chronicles how Obama encourages the press corps’ anti-Hillary biases, and he warns of a split in the Democratic coalition.

In their book, Lyons and Conason show how the Washington press corps were accomplices in the Right’s plan to destroy the Clintons. Perhaps having learned from that analysis, now Conason uses the same straw man techniques to question Hillary’s motives. For example, when Hillary stated that Obama is having trouble winning the votes of blue-collar whites, Conason interprets her comments with this broadside:

What she should not ignore, however, is the damage that her increasingly reckless behavior is inflicting on her reputation and that of her husband — especially when she starts to sound like a reincarnation of the late George Wallace.

What Conason doesn’t address is that Obama does have a problem winning the votes of blue-collar whites. Conason is using the same rhetorical trick as Keith Olbermann and Markos Moulitsas, the trick where accusations of racism are treated the same as real racism.

However, as the Times pointed out the day after Hillary trounced Obama in West Virginia, she beat him because of her economic message, not because of racism:

Nearly two-thirds of West Virginia voters said that the economy was the most important issue facing the country, and they backed Mrs. Clinton by a margin of 2 to 1. About 9 in 10 voters say they were affected by the current economic slowdown, including nearly half who said they were affected a great deal. Mrs. Clinton was supported by about three-quarters of those most affected.

Obama bloggers screamed “racism” at the incredible rejection of Obama by West Virginia voters. However, as Paul Lukasiak shows, Obama once lead Hillary among white men by 4.6% but now trails her by 12.9%. It’s not Obama’s skin color which matters; that hasn’t changed. What has changed is the information the public has received about Obama, his associates, and the way he has conducted his campaign. For instance, the Obama campaign’s suggestion that Hillary is waiting for something unthinkable to happen to Obama.

Avoiding the pathos invoked by Conason, Lyons writes that low-income whites are attracted to Hillary because of her populist, patriotic message:

Every available poll shows that economics, health care and national security motivate such voters, not bigotry. Academic leftists have daydreamed about a winning coalition of African Americans and latte-sipping idealists since forever, but it’s never worked before, and there’s no reason to believe it can work [now].

Conason continues his rhetorical tricks of smearing the Clintons by praising the Clintons’ past stands on racial issues, and then bemoaning that:

the Clintons probably understand the essential evil of racism better than most white politicians. They have certainly done more than most of today’s white politicians to combat that evil. That is why, as they contemplate the conclusion of this campaign, they deserve better from themselves than to encourage doubt about their decency and character.

Juxtaposed to Conason’s straw man argument, Lyons calls out the media for their obvious bias:

But it’s not merely patronizing for the Washington media to have taken sides, it’s dangerous. By declaring an extremely close contest over, and by repeatedly questioning the motives, even the sanity, of Clinton and her supporters, they’ve led Democrats to ignore a big chunk of political reality.

The reality of which Lyons writes is the divisions which have arisen in this primary that constitute a culture war. During the rise of the evangelical movement, the culture wars involved the strictures of Christian Right versus the secular mainstream. Similar to that culture war, the one that is dividing the Democratic Party is based on differing values: the race-baiting ideology of the neo-liberals, including accusing the Clintons of racism against all contrary evidence, accompanied by sweeping allegations of racism directed at anyone not supporting Obama, versus the more progressive positions proposed by Hillary such as advocating solutions for our economic woes, universal health care, a livable wage, and being strong on national security issues.

To put it differently, in order to promote their far-left (but less progressive) agenda, Obama and his operatives participate in willful misinterpretation for the sake of accusation and slander, tools employed by the far Right and the media in the 1990s. They employ an intentional knee-jerk reaction to find fault and blame Hillary Clinton not because she’s wrong but in order to further their own agenda, primarily the acquisition of power and the expelling of blue-collar whites from the Party. Contrast this with Hillary’s supporters’ ongoing questions about Obama: we want to know who he is, what he has accomplished, and why someone would vote for him.

This is especially important because Obama has received fewer votes than Hillary and he is the weaker Democratic candidate, yet it appears that he is being forced onto Democrats even though they have soured to his candidacy. Anglachel describes the culture war in this campaign in these terms:

The actual political battle being fought this electoral year is whether or not the Democratic Party is willing to abandon its elitist politics of resentment against its own working class core and take that part of the population back from the Republicans…

If the anti-Clinton wing persists in the politics of demonization to the detriment of the party, they will be the ones left at the station as the Republicans drive off with the majority of the voters.

Conason and Lyons, once coauthors and now on opposite sides in this new culture war, epitomize this distinction: one fishes for blame and the other hunts for answers

Dorothea LANGE, “Migrant Mother,” 1936

A friend paraphrases a famous story to illustrate why she may vote Republican for the first time in 40 years: in the late 1960s, when the feminist movement was still thought of as a novelty, a boorish male reporter asked the heterosexual Gloria Steinem if she was a lesbian. Steinem responded, “I am if you’re the alternative.”

There is a growing consensus at No Quarter and elsewhere that Obama’s tactics have made him an unacceptable alternative to Hillary, and many of us will be voting for McCain, writing in Hillary, or staying home.

As Hillary continues to increase her popular vote lead and absolutely crush Obama in critical states, many are looking at a potential Obama nomination as a coup d’état similar to Florida in 2000, facilitated by the neo-liberal-Dean wing of the Party, African American power brokers, and the Clinton-hating media. Regarding Florida and Michigan, Anglachel writes:

Lack of legitimacy means relying on force to win. If you have to bully people to make them be quiet, you have lost legitimacy. If you have to remove votes from the contest in order to win, you have lost legitimacy. The objection Hillary supporters have to “teh Rulz” to exclude Michigan and Florida is how nakedly they are used to force the numbers themselves into submission.

A commentator agrees with Anglachel and points out that:

The FL/MI debacle not only robbed Clinton of delegates, but it robbed her of momentum that would have affected later contests. It robbed her of frontrunner status. In fact, with those 2 states and Super Tuesday, she probably would have been close to winning.

An Obama nomination — after the selective but intentional disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida, the relentless race-baiting by Obama and his surrogates, and the venom from his supporters — is repugnant to many of us who, to use Arthur Schlesinger’s phrase, are unrepentant and unreconstructed liberals and New Dealers.

What we are witnessing is nothing short of the breakup of the historic Democratic coalition. Chris Bowers, Obama supporter and writer at Open Left, dreams of a cultural change in an Obama Democratic Party which is almost a parody of the brie and Chardonnay stereotype:

There should be a major cultural shift in the party, where the southern Dems and Liebercrat elite will be largely replaced by rising creative class types. Obama has all the markers of a creative class background, from his community organizing, to his Unitarianism, to being an academic, to living in Hyde Park to shopping at Whole Foods and drinking PBR. These will be the type of people running the Democratic Party now, and it will be a big cultural shift from the white working class focus of earlier decades.

Further illustrating their break with traditional liberalism, Markos Moulitsas has declared himself a libertarian Democrat, in other words: a politically correct Republican. These neo-liberals are really proposing a Party run by those who have little need for government and instead focus on identity politics, environmentalism, post-partisan government, and the rejection of American exceptionalism. The neo-liberals demonize the traditional Democratic base of poor white voters precisely because these voters rely on government and expect their leadership to fight partisan battles on their behalf. They are also deeply patriotic and weary of the moral relativism put forward by the likes of Jeremiah Wright.

Because of Obama’s anemic performances in West Virginia and Kentucky, the campaign and its supporters imagine a new Party. Sean Wilentz writes

the Barack Obama campaign and its sympathizers have begun to articulate much more clearly what they mean by their vague slogan of “change” – nothing less than usurping the historic Democratic Party, dating back to the age of Andrew Jackson, by rejecting its historic electoral core: white workers and rural dwellers in the Middle Atlantic and border states.

It remains to be seen whether the breakup of the Democratic Party more resembles (A) the McGovern disaster of 1972 and 20 years in the wilderness, or (B) a dismantling of the current coalition more akin to the Republicans replacing the Whigs in 1856.

In whatever form our Party takes, the perpetrators of this breakup are the Obama campaign and the neo-liberals. It’s their demonization of low-income white Americans which is largely the cause of our coalition’s breakup. Wilentz continues:

Without a majority of those voters, the Democrats have, since the party’s inception in the 1820s, been incapable of winning the presidency. The Obama advocates declare, though, that we have entered an entirely new political era. It is not only possible but also desirable, they say, for Democrats to win by turning away from those whom “progressive” pundits and bloggers disdain variously as “Nascar man,” “uneducated,” “low information” whites, “rubes, fools, and hate-mongers” who live in the nation’s “shitholes.”

Hillary’s ability to keep this race so close, with virtually no African American support, shows Obama’s incredible weakness as a candidate. This is not because of race, as the neo-liberal race-baiters would have you believe, but because Obama does not articulate an economic message which appeals to low-income whites. According to Wilentz:

Every poll shows that economics, health care, and national security are the leading issues for white working class voters – and for Latino working class voters as well. These constituencies have cast positive ballots for Hillary Clinton not because she is white, but because they regard her as better on these issues. Obama’s campaign and its passionate supporters refuse to acknowledge that these voters consider him weaker — and that Clinton’s positions, different from his, as well as her experience actually attract support. Instead they impute racism to working class Democrats who, the polls also show, happen to be liberal on every leading issue. The effort to taint anyone who does not support Obama as motivated by racism has now become a major factor in alienating core Democrats from Obama’s campaign.

The class warfare now raging in the Democratic Party, while both sides ostensibly are on the Left, is actually the classic struggle between the proletariat workers (blue-collar whites and Latinos) and the petite bourgeoisie (neo-liberals). African Americans have mostly gone to Obama because of the historic nature of his candidacy; many, however, were pushed to Obama by the race-baiting wedge utilized by Obama and the neo-liberals, a tactic identical in form and result as that used by Lee Atwater and other Republican operatives. Obama’s hostility towards the white working class, as seen with his bitter-gate remarks, is the exact framework from which many of the neo-liberals view this struggle:

Obama’s dismissal of white working people represents a sea-change in the Democrats’ basic identity as the workingman’s party – one that has been coming since the late 1960s, when large portions of the Left began regarding white workers as hopeless and hateful reactionaries.

Arthur Schlesinger, eminent historian and New Frontiersman, foresaw the dangers of identity politics as a substitute for progressive policy. He believed in an activist government which should be used “to improve opportunities and to enlarge freedoms for ordinary people.” The Obama campaign’s desire to win the nomination, regardless of its illegitimacy, and their hostility towards poor white Americans is a movement which is tearing the Democratic Party apart. Many of us believe that the best way to fight for working Americans — regardless of color — is to make sure this movement is defeated.