From the CNN Exit polls, it appears that the race factor may have been a little overblown by the breathless reporting from West Virginia. I think what we're dealing with here is a lot of low-information voters who really like Bill Clinton. (And the Clintons knew it and used it.)
Here is a nugget from the exit polls that I found interesting: 61% of WV voters thought that Bill Clinton's campaigning was somewhat or very important (only 16% said it was not important at all). Of that 61%, 85% voted for Hillary. Notice that "important" isn't, strictly speaking, a value judgment. But I'm thinking they like their good ol' boy in WV.
By contrast, among those who found Bill's campaigning to be not very or not at all important, Obama won a narrow majority of that vote (and that's where most of Edwards's vote appears to come from as well; leading to the possible conclusion that Edwards's share came mostly from Obama).
I think it was "important" if you love Bill and not if you don't. And whether you love Bill has a lot to do with whether you voted for Hillary. (And, frankly, if you love Bill and you think that means you should vote for Hillary, that says a lot about your level of information regarding the candidates.)
Also note that the exit polls (to be taken with hyperbolic amounts of salt) also show only 1/4 of the voters <span style="font-style:italic;">said</span> race was important (which is too much, but not overwhelming). So, in theory at least, Bill-loving is a lot more significant than race-baiting. In theory. I'd love it if that were true. Low information is a much preferred problem.
Numbers from CNN
cross posted at yazilikaya