This whole argument presupposes that the "race card" matters whereas the "gender card" does not matter. Did Clinton take the high road and say that Obama was definitely not sexist when observers thought that his remarks about her attacking him when she "felt bad" might be sexist? Where was her high road? Or is it okay to call Obama sexist--or something that he says sexist, while calling someone a "racist" is tantamount to calling them evil?

I don't think the Clintons are "racist." But I think that they underestimated Obama as a candidate because of his blackness--actually many people have done this and still are doing this. The Clintons are not in a broad sense (as much as I can judge such things) racist...but it's almost as if they were counting on the inherent--much discussed racism of the American people to not take Obama's candidacy seriously. And I think it has taken them by surprise--and many observers too--that people have 1) been willing to look at Obama apart from his race and 2) when they do see his race, to see it as a positive. That it would be nice to have another "face" on American Democracy....In a very similar way Clinton has been underestimated for being a woman, and people have overlooked the fact that people could look past her gender and/or consider it a positive for her candidacy. I think that what historians might think that American people could not look past with Hillary is the fact that she is a Clinton. Somehow being a Clinton has worked against her--and that might have to do with her campaign strategy and a lot of other things. But it doesn't have to do with the fact that most Democrats don't want a woman to be president.

It upsets me that Clinton supporters are taking articles like Willentz' seriously. Its as if you are still looking for one swipe to take away every aspiration that Obama represents....aha. What about this: he's a black "race-baiter". Gotcha. Hutman says correctly that Willentz doesn't distinguish between race-baiting that caters to racists or race-baiting that caters to people who are against racists...So the term becomes more of way to insinuate something bad and scary, than something that is carefully or clearly defined.

What I think that Obama has successfully done is to allow his race to be either absent--or a positive in his campaign. I don't think he's called the Clinton's racists...but neither has he given them a 100% free pass where it has looked as if they were saying things that sounded iffy. This is what campaign trails are like. Clinton didn't "rise above" the moment that Obama supposedly walked past her instead of shaking her hand. She didn't give him a pass for his seeming stumble...

Campaigns are made up of tiny stumbles and moments of grace. Both candidate have done both. The idea that the Clintons haven't created any of their own trouble in this campaign bothers me. I'm not a race-baiter (not in either definition I've given above) but I think they underestimated Obama because of his blackness. This isn't a crime, and I don't necessarily think it's racist on their part...but so far the American people have been more color blind or willing to see race as a positive than almost any of the pundits believed that they would be.

That's a good thing, though, right? A good sign of the evolution of the American people? I think it is.

"If the price of Obama winning is the trashing of the Clintons's integrity and respective reputations on matters racial, then the price is not only way too high, but ugly in the bargain."

But no one here supporting Clinton has explained how Obama is responsible for Clintons fumbling. Why don't you think that the Clintons are responsible for their own statements, like the Jesse Jackson statement, that even their own supporters found difficult to accept? Racist? Maybe not. But race insensitive....we can all be race insensitive, frankly. But to be so on the campaign trail is a political fumble. Blaming Obama for the Clintons' fumbles doesn't make sense to me. Saying that he should have waved a wand and made all questions of race or racism go away...taking the "high road" and protecting America from its own racist history that is way bigger than this election or any participants in it....doesn't make sense to me either.

Please explain. It would be like holding Clinton to blame every time "sexism" comes up in this election. If racism is a serious charge, then its serious for everyone. It's serious for Obama too because a lot of people initially didn't want to vote for him because they thought "racist America" wouldn't support his campaign...the idea that Obama somehow mysteriously benefits from bringing up race is far from evident--even given the amount of anger here against him and the blame for race being brought up--even when he didn't start (or end) the conversation.

By the way, when I say that his race is a positive I'm not refering to any of this manchurian candidate innuendo or PC police or anything like that. That part of it has been a negative. But I simply mean that someone of another color brings something positive to the table--just like Clinton's gender is a positive. I know that the Clintons know this and that they even like him. But I think they've been surprised at the way America has embraced a black candidate so quickly...everyone has been surprised. But I think it's been a good thing and the result of a good campaign.

I'm sorry that Clinton supporters cannot see this.