Clinton: I, but not Barack Obama, have the support of
working, hard-working Americans, White Americans
Some ... call you swing voters, I call you Americans
(Where "hard-working" means uneducated enough to have voted for Bush twice).
The common interpretation among pundits is that it is an unwise but innocent statement of fact. But it is neither factual nor innocent.
First, there is the transition from hard-working to Americans to whites, with the implication that being white and American and hard-working are all the same thing. It is a testament to the collective tolerance for Clinton's delusions that she is not barraged with charges of racism, but rather given heat for just another indelicate gaffe.
Second, there is the idea that Obama automatically wins the black vote because he is black. In fact, Clinton once had a significant lead among African Americans--in January of 2007, by 40 points. She and Bill Clinton had to work very hard to shed that advantage.
Finally, if Obama has a demographic problem is with older white women, not white voters per se.
Obama and White Voters
Gallup Polls show that Obama's support among whites is precisely the same as Kerry's was at the same period in 2004. In fact, Obama's support among white voters has been remarkably consistent.
The point is that the white vote skews against Obama is likely an artifact of other factors, most egregiously, the fact that Indiana is 78% white. This means that barring some unusual circumstance (like winning 92% of the Black vote), any winner of of Indiana would have won the white vote. Given Clinton's current disadvantage with black voters, winning Indiana for Clinton implies winning the white vote. Hence no matter what the motivations of voters -- no matter what her reason for winning -- Clinton would have won the white vote. Why not attribute her win to voter policy preferences? If Edwards had lost to Clinton in Indiana, he also likely would have lost the white vote. Would that have been because of a Clinton advantage with race, or because of her name recognition? Or experience? Or her health care plan? Or her appeal to women and the elderly?
Obama and Older Women
In fact, because the Indiana electorate is far more evenly divided by sex and age groups, it is far more relevant to speculate about these demographics as causally relevant to Clinton's success. They are still speculations, but no where near as vacuous as speculations about racial advantages in a 78% white state.
56% of Indiana primary voters were female, and 58% were over the age of 44. 52% of women voted for Clinton, 52% of voters 45-59, 65% of voters 60 years and older, and a whopping 70% of voters 65 and older. These demographics are far more significant than race, and a racial advantage is an inevitable artifact of these advantages in a predominantly white state.
So the defense that the statistic about white voters is technically correct doesn't fly. The statistic is irrelevant. It is not conclusively indicative of a cause, it is not an explanation. Hence its use as an explanation is simply the assertion of a falsehood.
That pundits are incapable of making these analysis is far more distressing than Clinton's race-baiting.