I hold in my hand proof that Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell wants Barack Obama to lose the presidential election this November.

What do I have? I have a July 31 press release announcing that Rendell has established a “Chief Diversity Officer” for the Keystone State backed up by the legal force of the state government.

Rendell’s action is great news, of course, for the leftist-multiculturalist cause of “diversity.” But Rendell’s action is also an early warning indicator: It’s a signal to non-leftists, in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, of what an even greater emphasis on “diversity” might look like. That is to say, Rendell’s action in Pennsylvania is a preview of what could happen next in Barack Obama’s America. And that realization could be enough to put the 21 electoral votes of normally “blue” Pennsylvania in play.

Whoa there, Pinkerton, you might be saying. Rendell is a Democrat, and Democrats, as a party, are the leading proponents of “diversity”—also known as affirmative action, racial preferences, and, most bluntly of all, quotas. Moreover, Rendell, who strongly supported Hillary Rodham Clinton in the recent Democratic primary campaign, might simply be trying to get in good with Obama by “getting with the program,” diversity-wise.

So by that reckoning, it makes perfect sense for Rendell to name a “Diversity Czar,” Trent Hargrove, who would solemnly declare, “We will prepare a strategic plan that will make Pennsylvania a national leader in diversity management.” No doubt the progressives of Philadelphia—not to mention Washington D.C. and San Francisco—will love such brave talk about “diversity management,” but how will that sort of lefty boilerplate play in Allentown? In Aliquippa? In Altoona? Not well. Because the blue collars and ethnics in “Deer Hunter” Pennsylvania have learned, from bitter experience, that “diversity” and all its code-word synonyms have simply become a way to provide government aid to “fashionable” minorities at the expense of the hardscrabble majority.

And so when another of Rendell’s diversitarians, Naomi Wyatt, announces, in the same press release, “We can transform our diversity efforts into a more comprehensive program across all state agencies,” how should those words be taken? As a promise? As a threat? I report, you decide.

No doubt the liberal Mainstream Media will either applaud Rendell’s move or, more likely, simply ignore it. From an MSM point of view, why harp on good news?

But here’s the reality: The American people know the score on “diversity.””They know that the noble idea of “equal opportunity” and “colorblindness” has been deeply corrupted into something different—into a race-based racket, in which any risk-averse decision-maker is well advised to hire or admit the applicant who can check off the most number of favored-status boxes.

Rendell confirmed as much in his statement inside the July 31 release: “Establishing this office underscores my commitment to creating a culture of inclusion that values and promotes diversity and equal opportunity throughout state government.” That’s an added emphasis on “and.” So you see the point: There’s “diversity,” AND there’s “equal opportunity,” but they are two different things. And “diversity” comes first.

Most Americans don’t like this system, but they can’t do much about it—because “diversity” has been put in place mostly by bureaucrats and judges, all of whom are safely tenured, safely insulated from political pressure. We could say, the Diversity Fix is In.

But one area where the average American can protest such runaway leftism is at the ballot box every few of years—especially at the national level, where liberalism, and conservatism, are most apparent to the non-expert eye. And it is at , at the national level, that conservatives have done well, in opposition to liberalism: Republicans have won seven of the last 10 presidential elections.

So here’s where Rendell’s hidden-hand cleverness might be making an appearance in. I can’t prove it, but I can’t help but think that maybe Rendell is plotting to “help” Obama lose. Because this “diversity initiative” is a way of highlighting “diversity liberalism,” which is to say, highlighting Obama’s liberalism.

The Illinois Democrat, of course, supports affirmative action. How could he not, since it’s widely believed that he has benefited from such policies? And so it’s safe to assume that there would be plenty more “diversity”-type programs in an Obama administration. Such “diversity” programs wouldn’t be popular with the white working class, but if Obama wins the presidency this November, he might figure that he has a mandate for his kind of liberalism. And who could argue with him in the Oval Office? After all, he was elected as the 44th President.

But maybe he won’t win. Maybe the swing voters—those “Deer Hunter Democrats” in Pennsylvania—will be so alarmed by what they see from Rendell in July that they decide to retaliate against Obama in November.

So there’s Rendell’s sneaky plan. He gets those “Reagan Democrats” riled up enough to vote for John McCain, thus costing Obama the state of Pennsylvania, and quite possibly the White House. (For his part, McCain has been moving toward a more conservative opinion on affirmative action recently, while Obama, obviously, vigorously defends the idea.)

Liberals have complained for years about conservative “wedge issues”—a wedge issue being defined as one that a liberal would rather not have to deal with. But in 2008, such “wedgies” are popping up all over the country; a particular hot spot is Colorado, where Amendment 46, which would end race preferences in the Centennial State, threatens to drive up turnout in a pro-McCain direction. And that conservative “surge” could make the difference for Colorado’s nine electoral votes this November.

Meanwhile, back in Pennsylvania, Rendell has just done his bit to light a match under the charged arsenal of legal-racial explosives. If it all blows up in Pennsylvania, destroying Obama’s electoral chances, maybe Rendell will be surprised, or at least act surprised.

Or maybe he will say to himself, “That’s not so bad. I never really liked Obama, and I still like Hillary. And now, with the 70-something McCain in the White House, the path will be clear for Hillary to make another run in 2012.”

I can’t prove any of this, of course, but my explanation perfectly squares with the latest chapter in the “diversity” controversy—as it’s likely to play out in Pennsylvania, and around the nation, in 2008.