Okay. I give up. What possible reason does Hillary have for continuing in the race? And by that, I mean is there a legitimate reason, rather than the biased (and unbecoming) reasons that keeping popping up in my mind?

Without meaning to send us all into defining what the definition of "is" is, it seems to me that Hillary's comments can, indeed, be catagorized as racist re: how she has the "white votes".

Dictionary.com: 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Wikipedia (partial definition):

While the term racism usually denotes race-based prejudice, violence, discrimination, or oppression, the term can also have varying and hotly contested definitions. Racialism is a related term, sometimes intended to avoid these negative meanings. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group or racial groups. The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines racism as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular racial group, and that it is also the prejudice based on such a belief. The Macquarie Dictionary defines racism as: "the belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule or dominate others."[citation needed]

Miriam-Webster.com: 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

(CNN) — In what appear to be the New York senator's most blunt comments to date regarding a racial division in the Democratic presidential race, Hillary Clinton suggested Wednesday that "White Americans" are increasingly turning away from Barack Obama’s candidacy.

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," Clinton said in an interview with USA TODAY.

Clinton cited an Associated Press poll "that found how Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

Exit polls from Tuesday's primaries in Indiana and North Carolina show Clinton won about 60 percent of the white vote in both states. That percentage is down from the Ohio primary on March 4, in which Clinton won upwards of 65 percent of the white vote. Meanwhile, Clinton garnered 63 percent of the white vote in Pennsylvania on April 22.

Speaking with the paper, Clinton rejected the notion her comments were racially divisive in any way.

"These are the people you have to win if you're a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election," she said. "Everybody knows that."

~~~

Note that less than 12 hours after the Tuesday primaries in North Carolina and Indiana this poll indicates Obama's support "among...white Americans, is weaking AGAIN". Again? Since when has "again" become so obvious when it comes to trends?

Note that based on the exit polls, it's Hillary's percentage of white votes that's weakening.

Note that she has no proof that white Americans are increasingly turning away from Obama. It's hard to reason why he's won more states, more of the popular vote, and more of the delegates and conclude there's a group of voters he can't reach. Well, if that's really true (unlikely) then hhe can reach all the other voters, so there doesn't seem to be a problem, or any wind in Hillary's sails. But more to my point, if the above had been said by Obama about black voters, how would Clinton, McCain and the media respond. I assume we can all spell "racism".

On last night's Hardball -- which I caught while CNN was running ads -- Chris announced that a survey of Europeans (however that might be defined) had produced a list of their Top 5 American News Sources. Since I can't remember the guys in the fifth position, here's what I recall:

4 -- Sean Hannity

3 -- Rush Limbaugh

1 -- Karl Rove (yes, Chris presented the info out of numerical order, because....

2 -- Chris Matthews!!

AND, he had a smile on this face! OMG! He's happy being between Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh!

Call me an idealist, but for years I've held Chris Matthews in high regard for what seemed to me a well-presented show, with well-chosen guests, well-reasoned views on truly pertinent issues, anchored by a good-hearted, well-educated, and very bright man. He was my first choice in television, night after night.

And then came the 2008 Presidential Election. Chris seems to be so smitten with the "game" of politics that he's lost the ability to distinguish between politicians (those we elect to represent us) and campaigning.

Chris's admiration for those who do whatever they have to do in order to win elections is palpable. Members of the media, including Chris, use those media-grabbing events and re-cast them as "news" which the media will then "report on", sometimes for days. (By "report", I mean the pundits will argue about their different opinions. No real journalism involved.)

When a campaigning politician wins an election, Chris says that person is a "good pol". It doesn't matter if what the "pol" said or did to sway the electorate was unethical, misleading, or untrue. If they win, and if they catch Chris's attention, he says they're good.

Forgive me, but someone needs to play hardball with Chris to help him relocate his compass.

A few specifics to make my point a little clearer:

-- Hillary Clinton fooled the PA voters into thinking she's a blue collar girl. Chris complimented her as a "good pol" for pulling that off and yet it was a hoax. Hillary is NOT a blue collar girl and if she ever was one, it was so long ago that she no longer knows how to pump gas or work a coffee dispenser.

-- When the clips of Reverend Jeremiah Wright hit YouTube, showing out-of-context clips from a sermon he gave shortly after 9/11, Chris focused on those clips, going on about how horrible they were, seemingly without bothering to watch the sermon from which the clips had been pulled. (If he'd watched the sermon, he'd have known how deeply edited those clips were.) Worse yet, at least in journalistic terms, he showed no curiosity about who did the editing and posting of those clips, and for what purpose? (My guess: it was the Clinton campaign as part of their on-going efforts to convince voters and delegates that Obama isn't "vetted" or ready to be president.)

-- When the Reverend Wright addressed the 2008 Detroit NAACP Fundraising dinner, as the invited speaker, MSNBC didn't even cover the speech (Fox and CNN did). But all the next day, after Fox and CNN had added other items to their news coverage, every MSNBC show anchor interviewed guests from the point of view that the speech was "extremely damaging" to Obama... and yet, they were the only ones who were saying so at the time and thus, they created their own "news". I listened to the speech, twice, and didn't conclude it was damaging. In fact, the overall tone was uplifting. But when Hardball opened that night, Chris was visibly outraged about the Reverend's speeches.

I have nothing to gain by defending Reverend Wright. I can, however, understand why a man might feel the need to explain himself after being shown out of context, and criticized day after day after day, for things he allegedly wrote and intended as they appeared in the clips. The guy deserved the time to clear his name, even if in so doing he made himself less understood. None of that needed to suggest a direct relationship between the Reverend and Barack Obama's beliefs, positions, style, or politics, but Chris (and other MSNBC "reporters") made sure it did. Why? What was there to gain, except a discussion of campaign tactics, rather than campaign issues?

In truth, what bothers me most is that Chris has failed to focus on political, social, scientific, economic, health care, and other crucial issues which -- if he cared to -- could help viewers understand and think through the choices presented to them by the different candidates. But rather than contribute to an educated citizenry, Chris is putting himself and his views in between the voters and the candidates positions on the issues.

Chris is a guy who served in the peace corps. He served under President Carter. He's extraordinarily bright. And yet he's become as much a spectacle, in his own way, as has the Reverend Wright. Despite efforts to express my dismay to him directly, or via MSNBC, my emails keep getting bounced back to me. That tells me they're doing exactly what they want to do. So with a deep sense of disappointment and pain, I find myself turning the channel. The man who was once a high-minded and graceful commentator has, for reasons unknown to me, lost his way while enjoying every moment of it.

Given my former appreciation and loyalty to Chris, and my current change of heart, one might ask why I continued watching him every night for years... just as one might ask why Obama stayed with his Pastor for so long. Well, sometimes the people you love and rely on stop being as lovable and reliable as you thought they were. It's painful when that happens, so you try to give them the benefit of the doubt. And when that's no longer possible, you have to let go. Chris mattered to me. I miss the guy who once sat in his chair. But I've had to let go.

While much of the current focus on Hillary is about her ill-conceived and misleading plan to declare a "Gas Holiday" over the summer months so blue collar workers ("BCWs") can catch a break, I'm still reeling (okay, giggling) over her televised visit to a real live gas station yesterday morning.

Riding shot-gun with a local BCW, who was driving his boss's clean white pick-up, Hillary showed she doesn't have a clue about what BCWs do in pick ups (smoke, drink coffee, and -- if the chemistry is right -- talk amongst themselves). Instead, Hillary hauled out her cell phone, leaving her token BCW driver to his own devices. And, once the gas had been pumped, her eyes were big as silver dollars when she saw how much it cost to fill half a tank. That was when she told us she hadn't pumped gas in years because, you know, there's all those secret service men who do that kind of thing. Yeah... BCWs run into that all the time.

And then, as if the performance needed an extra scene, she stood in front of a series of coffee dispensers looking baffled. She was so unsure about how to work the thing, you could almost see the question mark hovering over her head. Getting coffee at gas stations (if she'll even drink anything less than freshly ground) is probably a secret service task as well.

The media showed clips of Hillary's adventures in "Gasoline 101", but they failed to connect the dots between her performance and the real daily rituals of BCWs whose lives don't really include secret service people to do the regular stuff that regular people do.

I find myself hoping the voters in North Carolina and Indiana will pause long enough to realize there's an effort here to pull the wool over their eyes, just as had happened in PA. But maybe this time, the voters will see through the it. A girl can hope.