Coming off a dramatic victory in Iowa, the Obama campaign suddenly found itself deep in the fog of a concocted battle with the Clinton Camp over race.
It's vintage Clinton Machine politics--a politics that calls for the use of any device, no matter how low and despicable, to gain political advantage.
They are such masters of "slim & hide" politics that many in the media--and therefore the public--seem confused about which camp is responsible for inserting race.
So there was Hillary sounding all saintly in yesterday's debate in Nevada--and incredibly it was Obama who Tim Russert keyed in on until forced to apologize.
Apparently in American politics, if the Clintons and their surrogates cleverly stroke the race chord, and a campaign helper for the Obama Camp documents it for lazy reporters to read, according to Russert that's race-baiting by Obama.
As a veteran reporter and former political operative who knows the game, I expected better from Russert.
Hillary sat there looking like the cat that swallowed the canary!
But in politics there's a simple test used in determining who's behind a particular tactic: see who benefits.
Who benefited from raising direct and indirect questions about race on the eve of the New Hampshire Primary--a primary which had Obama in the lead?
Hint: It wasn't Obama.
How exactly does Hillary benefit from use of the race card? And would the "nonracist" Bill and Hillary Clinton stoop so low as to allow its use? For answers to those questions by someone who understands political combat Clinton style, read former Clinton political consultant Dick Morris' In Contrast to Obama, Hillary Plays the Race Card.
I challenge Clinton supporters--especially those Latinos shilling--to prove us wrong.
My conclusion from this whole sordid affair? The Clintons know that their opponents--be it Al Gore and Jesse Jackson in 1992, or Barack Obama and John Edwards in 2008--are more honorable. Politically, the Clintons--whom are less so--gain the advantage. Just witness what's happened this week.