The Democratic primary race has taken a very bitter, divisive tone recently, and many in the party are blaming the Clintons. Dick Harpootlian, a former chairman of the Democratic Party in South Carolina, accused the Clintons of using the "politics of deception." Other prominent national party members, including Ted Kennedy, Rahm Emanuel, and Tom Daschle, have called on them to cease fire.

Bill Clinton, who seems to be the more aggressive of the two, acts as if he's campaigning for a third term, and some believe he may be permanently damaging his legacy and reputation by attacking Obama so aggressively. Worse, the Clintons risk alienating Obama supporters to the extent that, come November, they either stay home or vote third-party.

What are they thinking? The strategy could backfire if voters are turned off by the Clintonian viciousness. But the Clintons seem to think this divide and conquer strategy is the way to victory. Hillary began as the front runner and still leads nationally, so if by injecting negative politics into the race she drags both candidates down, she'll still be ahead. As long as she damages both campaigns equally, she wins in the short term.

This strategy may be fully revealed after the South Carolina primary. Obama should win comfortably, thanks in large part to growing support from African Americans. I expect surrogates to portray him as the "black candidate," undermining his credibility as a general election contender and grouping him with politicians like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Obama's in a tough spot. If he responds too aggressively, he risks playing right into the Clintons' strategy. He can still win the nomination, but he's going to have to find a way to address these attacks, especially in the debates where his performance has been underwhelming. A little help from Edwards would go a long way as well.