As Pennsylvania was blanketed by snow on Tuesday, the thickest “white stuff” was recorded by Tony Norman of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

“You’ve got conservative whites [in Pennsylvania],” said Governor Ed Rendell, “who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.” Rendell continues his charade, saying, while “looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann been the identical candidate that he was – well-spoken, charismatic, good-looking – but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so.”

Wow. Did Pennsylvania really elect a man so insensitive, so egotistical, and so naïve?

I have three questions for you, Mr. Rendell:

Don’t you believe you won in the 2006 general election because you were the stronger candidate?

The 2006 Swann campaign was infantile: Swann had political party (our state is slightly Democrat) and fundraising disadvantages (Rendell out-raised Swann 2:1). He was also a non-native Pennsylvanian that had no political experience running against the incumbent governor, who walloped him in every debate because Swann had the policy-handling skills of Humpty Dumpty. Why he lost the election had nothing to do with his skin color. It had to do with Rendell’s ability to work a shovel and Swann’s lack of it.

Second, since you relied upon black and suburbanite voters, never conservative whites, what gives you the right to speak on their behalf?

When gun control and abortion became major wedge issues in the 2002 primary race, Rendell lost every middle county to current Sen. Bob Casey, Jr. In 2006 he lost these counties again, sans a handful. Rendell’s comments not only unearthed James Carville’s description of Pennsylvania (“Pittsburgh to the west, Philadelphia to the east, and Alabama in between”), it attempted to recast the areas (he never carried) as culturally backward, as if the Little Rock Nine, Brown v. Board, and Martin Luther King, Jr. did little to change the mindset of its residents. And as a resident of these areas, it’s offensive.

Lastly, since conservative whites are opposed to label candidates such as the “black” one, why would they support the “woman candidate” – especially one with the last name of Clinton? Or why should they support any candidate you endorse?

Based on profiling, most voters who will disregard Obama will also not vote for Clinton, just as they disregarded Rendell. By pitting the two candidates against each other – and reinforcing the “conservative whites’” distaste for him – our governor is reducing the slight Democratic lead for either winner, whether it’s Obama or Clinton. Instead, the scales tilt toward the moderate and toward the Republican. Advantage: McCain.

At this time next month, the presidential primary will move to Pennsylvania. And, just like cinders spoil a fresh, uncontaminated snowfall, insensitive comments issued by our own governor may have tarnished one of the greatest moments in our state’s electoral history. But then again, the next comment could be even more outrageous, too.