This is what Hillary actually said, without her words sliced and diced to make her seem like the racist Mr. Herbert later calls her:

Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters -- including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests.

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

Clinton's blunt remarks about race came a day after primaries in Indiana and North Carolina dealt symbolic and mathematical blows to her White House ambitions.

So in other words, she is winning more votes among white, blue collar workers than Senator Obama.  Although she doesn't say that the reason he is losing these voters is his race, that is what many Obama partisans such as Mr. Herbert are claiming.

According to Mr. Herbert's article, Hillary's observation about Obama's difficulty with blue-collar workers, a difficulty that has been the topic of articles in the New York Times and the Washington Post, was reminiscent of the GOP's Southern Strategy to win elections by appealing to white racists:

There is, indeed. There was a name for it when the Republicans were using that kind of lousy rhetoric to good effect: it was called the Southern strategy, although it was hardly limited to the South. Now the Clintons, in their desperation to find some way -- any way -- back to the White House, have leapt aboard that sorry train.

He can't win! Don't you understand? He's black! He's black!

The Clintons have been trying to embed that gruesomely destructive message in the brains of white voters and superdelegates for the longest time. It's a grotesque insult to African-Americans, who have given so much support to both Bill and Hillary over the years.

Oddly, Hillary's comment are consistent with something that Mr. Herbert himself wrote in an April 15 article I wrote on a few weeks ago:

He was asked at a fund-raiser in San Francisco about his campaign's experiences in the run-up to next week's Democratic primary in Pennsylvania. One of the main problems, of course, is that he hasn't generated as much support as he'd like among white working-class voters.

There is no mystery here. Except for people who have been hiding in caves or living in denial, it's pretty widely understood that a substantial number of those voters -- in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and elsewhere -- will not vote for a black candidate for president.

Pennsylvanians themselves will tell you that racial attitudes in some parts of the state are, to be kind, less than enlightened. Gov. Ed Rendell, Hillary Clinton's most powerful advocate in the state, put it bluntly last February: "I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate."

What Mr. Herbert said--and Hillary did not--was that the reason these voters were not supporting was his race!  He went on to argue that Obama's controversial "bitter" comments were a fumbled attempt to avoid stating the obvious:

Senator Obama has spent his campaign trying to dodge the race issue, which in America is like trying to dodge the wind. So when he fielded the question in San Francisco, he didn't say: "A lot of folks are not with me because I'm black -- but I'm trying to make my case and bring as many around as I can."

Instead, he fell back on a tortured response that was demonstrably incorrect. Referring to the long-term economic distress of many working-class voters, Mr. Obama said: "It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

He danced all around the truth. Unless you're Fred Astaire, if your dance steps get too intricate you're bound to make a misstep. This was a big one.

Let me get this straight, Hillary notes that exit polling data indicates that she does better among white, blue-collar, less educated voters, so she is a racist.  Bob Herbert notes that white, blue-collar, less educated voters are not voting for Obama because they are racist.  Mr. Herbert's logic is a perfect of example of what Paul Krugman called "Clinton rules."

As for the rest of Mr. Herbert's article, a re-hashing of the pardon's controversy in 2001, like all things Clinton, the former presidents pardons were investigated by both Congress and a special prosecutor.  Neither uncovered any evidence of any wrong-doing and before you draw any conclusions based on Mr. Herbert's words, at least take the time to read President Clinton's explanation.

I am a loyal Clintonista, but I see where this race is going.  Even if the Michigan and Florida delegations are seated as is, Hillary will not win the nomination.  Under the rules of the Democratic party, she has a legitimate and mathematical chance at becoming the nominee, but there is virtually no chance that is going to happen.  Unless we discover that Senator Obama has ten illegitimate children and likes to beat up old ladies in his spare time, the superdelegates are not going to give the nomination to Hillary when he is leading in pledged delegates and the popular vote.

There are other reasons for her to continue running, not the least of which is the need for her supporters, whom Senator Obama will need in the fall, to believe that Hillary was given a fair chance.  Being driven out of the race by a hostile media and a hail of attacks from Obama's surrogates will only make the task of uniting the party that much more difficult.  Clinton and Obama are separated by less than 1% of the popular vote and less than 5% of pledged delegates.  She is still receiving superdelegate endorsements and only yesterday did Obama finally overtake her in this category.  The most recent Gallup tracking poll has him up by only 5 points.  Most importantly, Obama has yet to deliver that overwhelming victory that would knock her out of the race.  Right now, the argument against her is mathematical and although he is close, he has yet to mathematically seal this up.

Hillary Clinton is not out to destroy the party.  Both she and her top aides have made public statements that make it clear she will not take the race to the convention.  For now, there are plenty of good reasons for her to continue to fight, not least among them is the fact that Obama has yet to win.

As for Mr. Herbert, the question shouldn't be, "Why aren't the Clintons exiting gracefully?"  The question should be, "Why won't the media that hounded Hillary and fawned over Obama allow the Clintons a graceful exit?"