Check out this piece in Buzzflash which says, among other things,
"Clinton began her focus on the white vote in earnest during the South Carolina primary, when husband Bill famously equated Obama's campaign with that of an earlier black presidential campaigner, Jesse Jackson. The linkage was
immediately spotted as a clever way of labeling Obama as a "black" candidate, since Jackson has always been a lightning rod for white voters because of his active support for touchy issues such as affirmative action and fair housing laws.
She also made much during the Pennsylvania campaign of Obama's membership in a black church in Chicago, and of his relationship with the church's black liberation preacher, Jeremiah Wright (adding that she "would have left" such a church herself).
"...clearly some of her support came from whites -- men and women -- who, as Clinton Pennsylvania mentor Gov. Ed Rendell said, "will not vote for a black candidate."
And there in stark terms is the answer. There are white voters in the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania -- a lot of them, in fact -- who are simply racists. They will not vote for a black candidate for president. Period.
That is a far different thing from a black voter who votes for a black candidate, or a Catholic voter who votes for a Catholic candidate. Identity politics is not racism."
Then there are Hillary "backers" who claim that calling those people "racist" is wrong, since a vast majority (90%) of blacks voted for Obama, claiming that to be "more racist." The writer explains as above, but failed to mention that this is a constant neocon rant: the "reverse racism" rant. It's total bull, and indicative of the divisive and Republican-strategied power-at-any-cost strategies of Hillary, whose proven expertise as a consummate liar should give those who dislike Bush and his policies pause indeed.
I find the gap between her higher rhetoric and her lower standards too appalling. I'd rather have the first woman President to be someone I could trust.