In the Democratic Primary, no one has played the "race card" yet. There have been a few claims, from surrogates and supporters, but not from the candidates themselves, that one side or the other is playing the race card or bringing race into the campaign, but both sides know that the race card is still in the deck. 

The race card, like the gender card, is a joker. It can't win the hand by itself. It has to be matched up with other cards. The race card doesn't work by evoking stereotypes. It works by smearing a candidate with those stereotypes in a specific way. It's not enough to remind voters that there is something about a culture, gender or race they don't like. The attack machines have to convince voters that there is something about this particular candidate they don't like. Saying that there are people who won't vote for a Black man is not playing the race card, even if it raises the question of Mr. Obama's electability in the general election. When someone plays the real race card, we'll know it, because they will go on to spell out exactly why they think some voters won't vote for a Black candidate like Mr. Obama. The attack will be specific, and it will be about Mr. Obama, although it will come to us wearing the respectable clothing of political analysis, and it will probably come in the form of a question, not as a statement of fact.

The closest thing I've seen to a real race card played in this campaign is Bob Johnson's reminder that Mr. Obama did drugs when he was a kid, followed by the comment that Mr. Obama had adopted a Sydney Poitier persona for the campaign.  I think Mr. Johnson's comment was aimed at older Black women, an important segment for Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Johnson forgot that his inappropriate remarks were going to be heard by a much wider audience, an audience that may not have realized just how pointed Mr. Johnson's remarks actually were, but that instinctively and justifiably slammed him for it.

Ironically, though, to get a good idea of how the sophisticated attack machines are going to play the race card against Mr. Obama, we can look at the way they have played the gender card against Mrs. Clinton. The attacks have ranged from the subtle to the ham-fisted, but they have consistently pointed out how at this moment or that, Mrs. Clinton is doing or being something her detractors hope voters don't like about women.

To his great credit, Mr. Obama has not done it, and I have not seen Mr. Obama himself say or do anything to hurt or disrespect Mrs. Clinton. I think his comment about her being "likable enough" wasn't a slight. I think it was a rueful admission that she is a formidable opponent with a loyal base. And I think his supposed snub at the State Of The Union was nothing more than a tactful turning away so that she could have a moment with Senator Kennedy.

But the gender card doesn't have to be played overtly. Researchers tell us that women are at a real disadvantage in confrontations with men. Anger, for example, when displayed by a man is viewed as a sign of strength. When anger at exactly the same things is displayed by a woman, it is viewed as irrational.

The gender card is out there, and it is working to Mr. Obama's advantage. The question is: Is it reasonable to expect a candidate to repudiate attacks on an opponent, particularly subtle ones, when those attacks are working for him?