Race? Wrong answer

They really must be elitist and out of touch. How else can all the current handwringing about the "role of race" in the Democratic primary battle be explained?

The implication of articles in the New York Times and Washington Post, and in the opinions of some commentators is, of course, that Hillary Clinton had better quit before she alienates African Americans by attacking Barack Obama and kills the party's chances in November.

As usual, most of those commenting on the motivations of white working class voters — who are reluctant to embrace Sen. Obama — have had so little contact with working class people they have no clue what anyone is thinking in small-town Pennsylvania.

There is racism in America, to be sure, but are those people likely to vote for any Democrat? No, they aren't. They haven't for decades; why should they start now?

Among working class Democrats, the issues are strictly economic, stupid.

Working class Americans see themselves as shafted in an economy dominated as never before in the memory of most families by the upper middle classes and the wealthy. Those people — many of the college-educated liberals who favor

Sen. Obama — are seen as taking an ever-widening slice of the economic pie and leaving crumbs for those near the bottom. In that sense, they are viewed almost in the same light as upscale Republicans.

Working class Democrats also are contrasting their own prospects with those of people with similar backgrounds from about 1950 to 1980, and they find that their options have shriveled. Social Security, which they need more than college professors or attorneys or medical professionals, is being dismantled. So is Medicare. Likewise, access to affordable, dependable health care and to higher education. Elementary and secondary public education, meanwhile, is being starved for funding while private schools flourish with hefty donations.

The working class voter sees jobs vanishing to China or elsewhere and feels it much more than the college-educated. The idea of upward mobility in America suddenly seems absurd, with doors constantly closing and ladders being pulled up.

They also see traditional religious values and patriotism as ignored, scoffed at or berated by some of their fellow Democrats, and they tend to look for telling signs that a candidate actually loves the USA.

Finally, rightly or wrongly, they see Hillary Clinton (who did spend 20 years in Arkansas) as someone who can relate to them and who will fight harder for their issues than anyone else. In fact, they are more comfortable with the idea of a battle with the Republicans than with warm notions of compromise and co-existence. They don't want our long philosophical struggle over the nation's future to end until they also are counted among the winners.

Somehow Barack Obama has to show he can reach these voters and that he understands where they are coming from. Since he remains the favorite to win the nomination, the Illinois senator has much work to do before the fall campaign or the Democrats are doomed. Thus far, he hasn't made a serious effort, which means it might not be in him.

Back to the handwringing over fears blacks will bolt the party in November: That is possible, but doesn't anyone worry that women will be enraged that the first woman candidate was dumped in favor of a — of course, younger — candidate? Women are an even larger segment of the Democratic base than blacks.

And think about this: Had Sen. Obama not entered the race this year, Sen. Clinton would have solidly behind her African Americans, Hispanics, women, young people (for the first woman candidate); most party liberals, older voters and the working class whites that Sen. Obama has trouble convincing.

If the party winds up playing the blame game in November, Democrats, especially liberals like Ted Kennedy, should be forced to consider that rallying around the New York senator might well have been their party's best option in 2008.