Now they are saying it outright: It's because he is black.

It's been lurking just underneath the surface for most of this Democratic battle for the presidential nominee, but now - as it becomes obvious that there is no way Hillary can achieve victory through the delegates - it has burst to the top. It's the question of whether the US is ready to elect a black man.

If Mr Obama cannot break through the submerged racial prejudice of older white voters, the argument of many Democrats goes, he cannot win the White House. Time magazine's commentator Joe Klein said poorly educated white voters have grave doubts "about a young, inexperienced African-American guy with an Islamic-sounding name and a highfalutin fluency with language".

Until now the Hillary camp have supplied lots of different reasons as to why Obama is not fit to be president, but we are now being asked to consider whether or not he can win simply based on his colour.

It is undoubted that within any society there are racists and that they will not vote for Obama because of this, just as in any society there are people who are sexist and who would not vote for a female president. What is simply extraordinary about this argument is that it is seriously being proposed that the existence of racists should overturn the result of a democratic process.

Obama has already proven that he can win in states where the population is 94% white, so it's odd that this subject should be raising it's head at all. However, we have become used to Hillary flouting every victory as if it has some profound meaning which must immediately alter the decisions of the super delegates. But this is an altogether new low.

I suppose what's astounding and annoying me is that publications like The Independent are giving stories like this credence and running with the notion that the super delegates have some profound considerations to make based on the fact that some Pennsylvanians are racist.

Mrs Clinton raised enough doubts about Mr Obama in Pennsylvania to persuade white working-class voters to hand her a nine-percentage point victory. A big part of Mr Obama's problem is race. The exit polls in Pennsylvania revealed that 20 per cent of voters think race is important and heavily backed Mrs Clinton.

All of this is being aired in the hope that Clinton can persuade the super delegates that America is not yet ready to elect a black man and to overturn the results of an election which she has lost.

She has made some ridiculous arguments during this electoral process - certain states don't count, others are latte drinkers etc., etc., - but this latest argument is simply obscene. I didn't think it was possible for Hillary to fall any more in my estimation, but she's managed it with this argument - which is being put forward by her surrogates - and which has been hinted at every time one of her team refers to Obama as "unelectable".

Thankfully, it is said that the "Gang of Four" super delegates are talking of intervening to bring this nasty, vile campaign to a close.

One idea being floated is for a so-called Gang of Four – comprising the former presidential hopeful John Edwards; the former vice-president Al Gore; the Democratic Party leader Howard Dean; and the House speaker Nancy Pelosi – to intervene after the primaries on 6 May. They would then call on the superdelegates to make a commitment within 10 days so that the party can have a nominee before the August convention in Denver. At that stage, the Obama campaign hopes to have won 2,025 delegates, enough to secure him the nomination.

Bring it to an end already, I simply can't bear to hear any more of these arguments which appear to sully the entire Democratic party.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Pennsylvania, US election 2008, Democratic presidential nominee