It is nearly impossible to have a meaningful discussion about an object that is not clearly defined.  When dueling parties are able to attach their own subjective definitions to fundamental vocabulary of a debate, the conversation is doomed for failure.

And that is why I ask this question: What exactly is 'The Race Card'?  We know we're not supposed to "play" it.  We know it's inherently bad and should be avoided by any self-respecting politician.  We know it's a "game-changer." 

But in spite of that, we don't seem to know what it is.

John McCain's campaign and a not-insignificant portion of the Republican Party seems to believe that The Race Card consists of any reference -- implied or otherwise -- to the issue of race in the campaign. 

Is talking about The Race Card playing The Race Card? 

Is talking about racial issues playing The Race Card?

Is talking about the historical dominance of white Christian male presidential candidates playing The Race Card?

It seems to be that we ought to be able to have more complex conversations about crucial issues like race, gender, and economic issues in this country.  We (and the media, of course) do ourselves a great disservice when we speak in terms of Cards and not in terms of facts available to us.  We spend more time talk about terms that we cannot define (such as 'The Race Card') than we do about the issues that the 'Card' implicitly represents.

Before we start making accusations of who played which card when, we should do ourselves (and our discourse) a favor and define the terms we're using.  Using a catch-all term is intellectual lazy and ultimately, confusing for those folks participating in a meaningful debate.