After the uproar created by the response to Hillary Clinton’s moment of choking up, and the supposed backlash created that swept her to a 3 point victory in New Hampshire, the shoe is on the other foot now, as her campaign’s being called to account for a number of utterances racial.

We should surmise this is only coincidence heading into South Carolina where the number of Black primary voters is proportionately high. The place where John McCain’s campaign got sunk by the Bushist whispering campaign about him having a Black baby. Yes, that South Carolina. Coincidence.

Josh Marshall puts forth the most objective interpretation possible because some of it comes from unknown sources, though Bill Clinton’s words have already provoked consternation to the minds and hearts of Black Americans. So the seemingly constant fuzzy racialisms are not all distant from the candidate.

I presume with her planned appearance on a Sunday talk show, Hillary will say something stern and grand, or maybe act insulted, when questions are raised about this. I never thought her moment of passion last weekend was staged. But with this one, it just seems set up for a nice flourish to sweep all those racialisms away.

“If you have a social need, you’re with Hillary,” the aide said. “If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you’re young and you have no social needs, then he’s cool.”

Statements like that try to re-ignite a theme some older Civil Rights veterans trotted out before. Obama isn’t Black enough or old enough or didn’t know the ghetto enough. Or he didn’t march because the marches were over. They’re not trying to say now that his Blackness is imaginary but his hipness is. Only it’s an easily confused distinction to the listener. They’re playing the generational card (as I predicted after Iowa) only it sounds a bit racist, as well. And classist.

Like the Clintons had to climb from humble beginnings and everything came easy for Obama. And both sides of that revisionism are a load of crap.

This can’t be genuine Hillary. She’s a great civil rights champion. She even played the LBJ vs Kennedy card, leaving out his War in Vietnam, of course, where a disproportionate number of Blacks took it on the chin for the guy. And there’s the eliminationism the FBI and others used to decimate the Black Panthers while LBJ was president. Both of the Presidents advanced the agenda and neither was flawless in dealing with advancements of equal opportunity. Parsing the records of dead Democrats to make distinctions that she’s older and wiser is wholly unecessary. It injects racialism where it shouldn’t be.

I refuse to believe that Hillary or Bill has a greater daily comprehension of what it means to be Black in this country or any country. Even now. After the disenfranchisement of Blacks in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, how solid is that Voting Rights Act LBJ passed anyway? Well known, wealthy Black Americans complain about being unable to get a taxi in Manhattan today.

Obama has no social agenda? Hillary has better plans? I suppose, comparing things like their healthcare plans, some narrow distinctions might be made. So make them, instead of running everything through this damnable racialist fuzz.

Face it. Obama IS hip, Hillary. You may claim added experience and wisdom. But is the wisdom difference between 46 and 60 really that much? Several of Bill’s White House advisors have joined his team because they see something in him they like. His polling numbers in Iowa say it’s not just the young who are attracted to his ideas and his shorter record.

For myself, I’ll say that I think Hillary’s got better positions on the domestic side but I like Obama’s foreign policy ideas better. I have faulted her for her initial flawed healthcare initiative and I like her current one no better. I don’t like her record on the Iraq War, despite a few votes she got right. I don’t think Obama’s healthcare plan is significantly better. I think he’s been right more often on Iraq, is more attuned to utilize our troops more wisely and promotes a role for the US in the world that surpasses anything Clinton has proposed. Her experience in aiding women and children, however, surpasses his domestic accomplishments by miles.

These are places where the differences should be noted, not on Hillary’s feelings or Obama’s race or shorter time alive. The media, bloggers and voters each have a responsibility to insist that Clinton and her campaign return to matters of substance instead of campaigning with words loaded with ulterior meanings that promote rancor in areas no Democrat should be treading in.

John Edwards was faulted for a remark that some labelled as a gender slap, even though he hadn’t even seen Hillary’s moment, declined to critique it and merely made an belated assertion that would be politics 101 if made in regard to any oppponent. He may have lost a couple of percentage points in New Hampshire because of the Hillary critiques that numerous others threw in. If he’s to be held to account for a fairly bland statement, shouldn’t Hillary be accountable for an abundance of racialism emanating all around and within her campaign?

She may have said nothing herself, but if she’s a leader, she needs to address it and put the kibosh on it immediately. It really is that simple. While she has not deserved all the wrath directed her way over the past 16 years, she, like her opponents, has made some mistakes and has occasionally provoked some of it. This is a situation that could flame further resentment and voters shouldn’t have to wait for a free televised appearance on Sunday. Some things are so important that they demand immediate resolution and if she lets it fester any longer we certainly have to question the value of that additional wisdom her campaign continues to mention as a necessary strength.

Disclaimer: Two months ago, I announced I’d decided to support John Edwards, expressed my doubts about Obama and my opposition to Clinton. Yet within six weeks, I may be faced with a campaign without Edwards in it. I’ll have to reassess the remaining two if that situation arises. So I think my description of this situation remains weighted to what I perceive as best for the country, not for or against Obama or Clinton. You, of course, may perceive my argument otherwise.