The New York Times devoted its lead news slot yesterday to puzzling over whether the reason Senator Obama lost Pennsylvania is because he is black. Could it be that word of Mr. Obama's skin color hadn't gotten out to the white voters of Kansas, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Iowa, all of which Mr. Obama won? Unlikely. Leave it to the Times to make a racial issue of it. We're waiting for the story on how Senator Clinton's skin color is posing a problem for her with black voters.

Truth is, Mr. Obama's race is the same as it was when he was winning primaries and caucuses. What has changed is that voters have started to focus on his promises to raise taxes, his promise to meet with the president of Iran, his expression of contempt for voters clinging to guns and religion, and his associations with radicals like William Ayers and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The information voters have about Mr. Obama's race is the same as it was at the beginning, but they have more information than they did before about his policies, associations, and views.

It's something for Governor Paterson to keep in mind as he looks toward 2010 and nurses his hopes to be the first African American to be elected governor of New York. Voters won't be paying much attention to his race. They'll looking to see whether he manages to cut spending and reduce the state's crushing tax burden.