This is just a short diary pointing out an inconsistency in two different spins offered by Obama supporters on the Clinton campaign. Consider it a friendly observation that it’s probably a better idea to pick one story (please see below) and stick to it.
Allow me to paraphrase the two Obama camp narratives that pop up about ever 2 minutes on this site, in alternating diaries and comments:
Story 1: The Clinton Attack Machine – In this version of reality, the Clinton Attack Machine is the leanest, meanest most ruthless, vicious, collection of media-savvy attack dogs the world has ever known. An all-star team of media-manipulating experts, they will stop at nothing, and know no external checks, in deploying their perfectly calibrated, burrowing smears. They make Navy Seals look like a bunch of girl scouts.
Obama has expertly dispatched this highly professional onslaught like Jason Bourne going through a gaggle of tainted spies in a London train station. In so doing, he has withstood the best anyone could imaginably throw at him, and is therefore completely vetted, and therefore destined to go completely unscathed in a general election fight.
Story 2: Mark Penn, Raving Idiot – In this version of reality, the Clinton campaign is riddled, from Penn on down, with utterly incompetent hacks, the detritus of the political consulting establishment behind two decades of Democratic failure. They are unable to tie their shoes – and frequently face starvation when they stumble into broom closets and become disoriented – but Hillary holds on to them, anyway, because she is a believer in the cult of loyalty to any incompetent hack that is loyal to her -- which, by the way, makes her just like George W. Bush!
This all goes to show that Clinton is hopelessly overmatched in any executive role, and certainly should never be President.
So which is it?
(Hint: the most recent news cycle seems to be piling on evidence in support of one of these narratives).