Guess what? Everyone loses.  

At March 7, 7:52 a.m., the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif. printed an interview with former Democratic vice presidential candidate and current Clinton finance committee member Geraldine Ferraro in which the pioneering politician said something about Clinton's main rival, Barack Obama, that was both baffling and offensive. "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she said. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."  As if running as a black man named Barack Hussein Obama was, like, easy.

More than four days later, at 5:03 this afternoon, Obama spokesman Bill Burton emailed reporters a statement slamming Clinton for "refus[ing] to denounce or reject Ms. Ferraro" and demanding that her campaign remove Ferraro from its finance committee. "She has once again proven that her campaign gets to live by its own rules and its own double standard, and will only decry offensive comments when it’s politically advantageous to Senator Clinton," he wrote. "Her refusal to take responsibility for her own supporter’s remarks is exactly the kind of tactic that feeds the American people’s cynicism about politics today."

In between, the two campaigns engaged in the kind of crossfire that's becoming all too common as the Democratic campaign enters a likely five-month slog to the Denver convention in late August. With passion on either sides hardening into something more like animosity, both camps tried to play the incident (and their rival's reaction) for political gain, battling over what constitutes an offensive comment and what counts as a sincere apology. Both ended up looking like hypocrites.

Hillary first. Asked last night for a reaction to Ferraro's comments, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said, "We disagree with her." So far, so good--no sane person, let alone political operative, could possibly agree. But Wolfson's "disagreement" wasn't enough for Obama foreign policy adviser Susan Rice. Appearing this morning on CNN, she demanded that Clinton herself "repudiate" Ferraro's remarks. "I think if Sen. Clinton is serious about putting an end to statements that have racial implications," said Rice, "then she ought to repudiate this comment." Considering Clinton's recent history, she had a point. When Louis Farrakhan declared his support for Obama last month, Clinton famously insisted that he "reject and denounce" the Nation of Islam leader (and occasional anti-Semite); Obama obliged. And when foreign policy adviser Samantha Power called Clinton a "monster," Clintonites prodded Obama to "ask [her] not to be part of his campaign," calling it "a test of character." The result? Power quickly resigned. Unfortunately, Clinton has refused to either reject, denounce or remove Ferraro, reiterating instead that she "does not agree." "You know it’s regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides say things that veer off into the personal," was all she would say this afternoon in Harrisburg. "We ought to keep this focused on the issues." Right. Because Farrakhan and Power were "issues."

Unfortunately, Team Obama hasn't quite remained above the fray. Calling for Clinton to repudiate Ferraro was only fair. But on a conference call this afternoon, top Obama strategist David Axelrod went a few steps further. Linking Ferraro's remarks to earlier "race-based" gaffes--including Billy Shaheen's speculation about whether Obama dealt drugs, Robert Johnson's claim that the senator spent his youth "doing something in the neighborhood" and Clinton's "own inexplicable unwillingness" to flatly deny that Obama is a Muslim in a "60 Minutes" interview--Axelrod said that "all this is part of an insidious pattern that needs to be addressed" and asked "whether she's trying to send a signal to her supporters that anything goes." Putting aside the question of whether or not such a pattern exists--and it very well may--Axelrod's assertion is clearly at odds with a statement that his boss made only six weeks ago, when aides floated similar suspicions in the rancorous run-up to the South Carolina primary. (In a four-page campaign memo, they even cited many of the same incidents.) Asked at the time by Tim Russert whether he "regret[ted] pushing this story," Obama said yes--and insisted that he wouldn't tolerate such speculation in the future. "Well, not only in hindsight, but going forward," he said. "Our supporters, our staff get overzealous. They start saying things that I would not say. And it is my responsibility to make sure that we’re setting a clear tone in our campaign, and I take that responsibility very seriously." The only problem? While he has rightfully called Ferraro's comments "divisive" (and even suggested that she should be fired), Obama hasn't said a word about Axelrod's "insidious pattern" insinuation. According to the senator himself, it wasn't acceptable then--so it shouldn't be acceptable now. End of story.

Both campaigns, of course, have already highlighted these hypocrisies. But whatever moral outrage they affect, in the end it's all about--what else?--political calculation. As the Politico's Ben Smith has noted, Obama's campaign thinks it has something to gain from accusing Clinton of crossing racial lines; Clinton's thinks it has something to gain from accusing Obama of playing the race card. The sad part is that the day started out on a substantive note, with Team Obama questioning Clinton's foreign-policy cred and the Clinton camp delivering a serious, factual rebuttal. International experience is a crucial question, and voters deserve to hear the candidates debate. But once race and gender enter the equation, the cable channels swarm, the pundits sharpen their knives--and the campaigns play along.

Only five months to go.

UPDATE, 10:00 p.m.: Ferraro has called back the Daily Breeze to reaffirm her comments suggesting that Sen. Obama is 'lucky' to be black:

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. ... Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?" 

How about "not good."