Let's flip Clinton's argument around:
What if one candidate whined to the press that racism was keeping them down in the vote totals, but hinted that his opponent was unelectable because in the fall people were NOT going to vote for her because of her gender? Imagine if the surrogates blamed all Obama's problems on racism. Would there be a backlash? But somehow it's OK for Senator Clinton to point out that in her opinion it's racism that's going to keep Obama from being electable? Talk about a double-standard!
What should Senator Clinton do?
David Gergen hit the nail on the head on CNN. He suggested in light of Hillary Clinton's discussions of sexism in the election she should say, “You know, if you want to vote against him because he’s black, then I don’t want your vote.” Constitutionally it's obvious. For a candidate in the USA in 2008 it just makes sense. In fact, for a Democratic candidate, it's rather surprising that she's playing the "that's just how it is" card when it comes to racism, as though we cannot make progress in the pursuit of equal rights by expressing our dissatisfaction on election day.
I'm not sure what Senator Clinton's angle is, or what she's setting up. She's more savvy than I am about politics and campaigns, and she's got some of the best advisors that money can buy - but I'd sure like to see her denounce and reject racism rather than shrug her shoulders and tell the press and the superdelegates that too many people won't vote for something different.
We've had two centuries when the White House was controlled by men of pallor. Either Democratic candidate will change that. If Obama told us the country wasn't ready for a woman...?
