Until immediately after Iowa, Barack Obama had succeeded in running a campaign of ideas and inspiration. (For anyone who thinks he’s short on substance, I encourage you to read his Blueprint for Change.) Finally, after his win in the Iowa caucus, there were a few media references that seemed borne out of a feeling of pleasant surprise that a black man had won among Democrats in this overwhelmingly white state.

Then came New Hampshire, where Hillary, dramatically under threat of not getting her presidential handout, “found [her] voice.” She became a woman to win over women.

And now, as South Carolina, where approximately 50% of the Democratic voting bloc is black looms on the horizon, she has dragged the two front-runners into the muck of identity politics.

Let’s review:

• her own comments about the legacy of MLK vis a vis LBJ
• Andrew Cuomo’s (a Clinton supporter) “shuck and jive” comments
• Robert Johnson’s (a black Clinton supporter) comments about Obama’s behavior in “the neighborhood” and comparison to Sidney Poitier a la Look Who’s Coming to Dinner

The Washington Post presents a summary of the whole sordid tale.

I’ll even give Bill a pass on his “fairy tale” comment since I’m familiar enough with the context of his remarks.

The Clinton camp knows that the race issue actually hurts Obama. Obama has run his campaign specifically against the legacy of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Until he was actually a threat (“those meddling kids”), he might’ve gotten away with it. Now, though, every political news item I read, every NPR discussion program I hear, is talking about the politics of race.

Sadly, the Obama camp is responding by playing too much defense. Circulating a memo highlighting Clinton camp transgressions only fuels the fire.

I see the hand of Howard Wolfson (Hillary’s own Karl Rove) in all of this. He and Bill are surely aware that, as with Karl Rove and the evangelical vote, they can sacrifice just enough of America’s black vote (which they’re losing in South Carolina) if they can engineer enough of a Bradley effect to keep Obama from winning the delegate count. Identity politics and the racializing of Obama is going to stem the tide of superdelegates we saw start to go for Obama after New Hampshire (a brilliant timing move on the part of the Obama campaign until the Clintons intervened).

In a way, I think it would’ve been better for Democrats if New Hampshire had served for Obama as a Kerryesque coronation so that we could’ve put paid to the Clintons once and for all. Beating the Clintons in Iowa, I think, was liberating for many Democrats around the country. They saw that they were able to vote their hopes and still back a winning horse. Even though we saw Ken Mehlman’s hand in identity politics when the RNC stuck it’s nose into the competition between Harold Ford, Jr. and Bob Corker in 2006 (“Call me!”), I actually think the Clintons would be more willing to play this game than any of McCain, Romney, or Huckabee (sorry Thompson, Giuliani, and Paul fans: I think your guys are done.). I think watching Obama take on any of the Republican candidates would be a breath of fresh air in national politics. Obama/McCain would be an especially beneficial debate about the direction of our country precisely because it would engage independents as much as partisans. I’d sacrifice the experience/change debate during the primary since I’m sure it will be reprised during the general.

Maybe Obama wins in Nevada and South Carolina will trump Clinton “wins” in Michigan and Florida (whose delegates won’t be seated by the DNC at the Democratic National Convention as a result of violations of rules regarding primary dates by the state parties in question). But watch for the Clinton team to promote a “victory” in Michigan today, despite hers being the only name on the ballot.

I certainly hope that there are enough Democratic primary voters to reject the rest of the Clinton brand of politics, like an unfortunate organ transplant, as not self. We have an opportunity to move beyond the “same old fights of the 90s”, but the Clintons don’t seem to want to let go of them. I sincerely think Obama entering the arena for a true contest of ideas would be of benefit for America. But putting the Bush-Clinton era behind us entirely? That’s change I can believe in…

…the Texan has been active in politics for decades. And, long before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business…the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul’s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him–and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing–but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.