So, let me get this straight. The Clintons did well in the casino caucus stations. The same stations they were trying to have the courts shut down? Had they succeed in their aims to change the rules last minute, they would have hurt themselves.

Bill and Hillary Clinton's strength is also their weakness. They are smart and calculating politicians who know how to play the game. But time and time again they have played the game too well for their own good.

Think of the Lewinsky scandal and all the damage Clinton did to his presidency by playing verbal games during depositions rather than plainly admiting the affair, apologizing to his family, and resuming his governing duties.

Why should Obama condemn the radio ads against Clinton? They are correct; Clinton's backers did try to use the courts to keep a lot of casino workers (workers who belong to a union that endorsed Obama) away from the process.

Let's get real here, I live in Vegas and to me a caucus system makes absolutely no sense for Nevada. Why this voting system would even be considered as pragmatic or fair is a complete mystery to me.

Nevada really is a 24 hour town. The biggest employers in the state are always at full or near-full service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In other words, no matter what day of the week or time of the day you schedule a caucus, a huge number of citizens will be unable to participate because they work in a very demmanding service industry.

To compensate for this major flaw, a decision was made a long time ago to have caucus stations on the Las Vegas strip. Does it allow everyone who has to work at 11am on a Saturday to participate? Of course not. But it sure as hell opens the door of participation to tens of thousands of workers concentrated in a small area who would otherwise have no opportunity to contribute their voice.

The teacher's union had no rational reason to object this decision. They argued that it was giving unfair edge to casino workers over their own workers. It was an argument wholly ludicrous if only because a small fraction of the teacher's union's members were unable to caucus due to work (on a saturday) as opposed to a huge percentage of casino workers.

This was an attempt by one political side to suppress the political supporters of an opponent through legal tricks. As Democrats, we've screamed for years over the voter suppression techniques used by Republicans to keep African American's from voting in key states like Florida and Ohio. How is this any different? Hillary Clinton was given many opportunities to renounce this lawsuit, and she did not.

The Clinton/Obama squabble over race is over for now. I imagine both candidates received a flurry of angry phone calls from party stalwarts imploring them to cease the destructive behavior and both soon saw the imperative need to get off that track.

The question now becomes, what will the consequences be for both candidates now that the dust is settling?

I believe that ultimately this episode will work to Clinton's disadvantage and Obama's advantage for a few reasons.

First, though both camps engaged in this debacle, there's no getting around that Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and their surrogate fired the first shots in this exchange and fired the most shots in this exchange.

And lets be honest, some of the statements made against Obama, particularly by Bob Johnson and Representative Charlie Rangel, were vicious and unpalatable.

Second, Obama was the first to signal the truce. But what is more important is that he did so in a manner that was truly genuine in its approach. There was not a touch of sarcasm nor a hidden barb in Obama's tone or words as he praised the Clinton's records on civil rights. Clinton's follow-up was equally sincere in tone and message, but what choice did she have when so gracious an olive branch was extended?

So, why do I think that Obama comes out on top? To begin, I think the Clinton's attacks on Obama will alienate a lot of black voters. I am not black, but I can only imagine how uncomfortable it must be to see one of the most positive and powerful black politicians in American history cruelly denigrated by black supporters of his white opponent.

But I also think Obama comes out on top because the Clintons failed to achieve their primary goal from this whole tussle about race. It has been speculated by many pundits and political observers that Hillary Clinton was pushing the race issue as a way of scaring white voters away from Obama by forcing him to focus on his race and his relationship with black America.

I don't think Hillary succeeded in part because Barrack deftly ended the feud so early. For all this talk about race, the focus of the arguments were always on the Clinton's commitment to civil rights and Obama's perceived smearing of that commitment. By affirming the Clinton's civil rights record and simultaneously ordering his campaign to stop commenting on this issue, Obama stopped the process before it could redefine the racial image he portrays to America.

During last night's debate, Obama worked hard to regain his former image, an image of a politician who believes his approach is fundamentally different and can bring about fundamentally different results. It is an image that is not hampered by his black skin.

Over the next few weeks, Obama is certainly not going to reignite the civil rights issue again. And I can't see how Clinton or her supporters can either. So, Clinton goes into Nevada and South Carolina with diminished support from African Americans while Obama gains African Americans supporters while retaining his initial base.