At a recent meeting with the Pittsburgh Post Gazette editorial board, columnist Tony Norman says Gov. Ed Rendell suggested Barack Obama would have a tough time beating Hillary Clinton in this state because of his race.

Norman wrote:

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," he (Rendell) said bluntly. Our eyes only met briefly, perhaps because the governor wanted to spare the only black guy in the room from feeling self-conscious for backing an obvious loser. "I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann [2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate] been the identical candidate that he was --well-spoken [note: Mr. Rendell did not call the brother "articulate"], charismatic, good-looking -- but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so."

Think about it. Here you have white, moderate/liberal Democratic governor suggesting that "conservative whites" might "not be ready to vote for an African American candidate in a DEMOCRATIC primary.

Given that Lynn Swann, a black man, was the nominee of the Republican (read: "more conservative") Party, it takes quite a bit of chutzpah for the Guv to blame racist "conservatives" for his defeat.

I doubt the governor, an announced Hillary Clinton supporter, is referring to himself. I suppose there are some "conservative" DEMOCRATS left in this state but aren't they few and far between.

Doesn't Ed really mean "racist" Democrats?

If Hillary wins the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, it seems, at least in Ed's opinion, she'll have a good number of racist Democrats to thank.

UPDATE: Who would have thought there would have been so many fewer racists in Virginia's Democratic Party?

UPDATE II: If Hillary loses, will Ed blame Pennsylvania Democrats for being too sexist?