So, why does Axelrod bring up the point again here, and make specious allegations about Clinton's motivation?  Because all it's going to accomplish is headline after headline and news toss after news toss with the words "Obama" and "Muslim" tied together.

It works, actually.  Create the narrative:  "Hillary Clinton and her campaign have consistently shown a pattern of racial attacks".  The facts will invent themselves from there on.  A few misstatements, some dumb mistakes, and some twisted facts later, and the narrative has become a reality.

Why? Because although Clinton isn't exploiting white racism -- a pretty foolish strategy for Democratic primaries -- the Obama camp is hoping to exploit understandable black distrust of the sincerity and commitment of white politicians,  and, most important of all, the class bigotry of many elite white liberals.

There was a charming video on YouTube awhile back, entitled "Clinton Supporters," made by a young Obama supporter at a university in Texas that beautifully illustrated the mindset of the kind of white Obama supporters I'm talking about -- to a banjo accompaniment it featured half-naked, scaggle-toothed and toothless white people, most likely the director and his friends having fun with make up, including one man sitting naked on a toilet on a porch. Imagery so assaultive to dignity, so bigoted and ugly, that if the people being portrayed had been anything other than white, there would be serious issues raised about whether or not a hate crime was being perpetuated.

YouTube appears to have applied some standards, because that video is no longer available for viewing. But its verbal equivalent is easily found anywhere Obama supporters gather.

Is it fair to hold Obama and his campaign accountable for this? Yes. Exploiting bigotry and prejudice for political advantage is morally reprehensible -- even when it is the bigotry of class, and the prejudices of people against members of their own race.