Well, I have to say that I am a bit surprised by the latest Clinton Pennsylvania advertisement that goes after Obama's admittedly sloppy statement on rural voters. Basically, it attacks Obama by using the right-wing frames in a manner I don't think I've seen used by a Democrat on a Democrat before.
I was surprised, but given what we've seen in the race, maybe I shouldn't have been.
This type of behavior has been a pattern of behavior by the Clinton campaign throughout the primary process.
Essentially the Clinton campaign's admitted logic is that 'if Obama can't take the heat, what will he do when the Republicans go after him in the general?'
I admit, there is some logic to that argument, up to a point. Up to a point. Having said that, I believe that there is a line that you don't cross, and that Hillary has done it more than once.
We first saw this happen before Iowa, when Clinton national co-Chair Billy Shaheen brought up the fact that Republicans were going to attack Obama on his admitted youthful drug use that he himself wrote about in his book, Dreams Mrom My Father .
Obama's candor on the subject, on the other hand, would "open the door" to further questions, Shaheen had said. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" he said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."
(And for those of you who say that Shaheen was not directed by the Clinton campaign, I refer you to Thomas B. Edsall's article in the Huffington Post where he wrote that the Clinton campaign was planning on raising the issue the day before Shaheen said what he said. This means you Sean Wilentz, you jackass.)
Another clear instance of this was Bill Clinton's comments, the day of the South Carolina primary, where he essentially likened Obama to Jesse Jackson in order to ghettoize Obama as a politician with strictly an African American constituency with white voters. This Republican-styled race-baiting was again intentional and, despite denials from the Clinton campaign, later proved to be a campaign strategy when a Mark Penn memo suggesting this talking point surfaced in the Washington Post.
"...On Jan. 26, the day of the election, Penn sent an e-mail to the senior campaign staff comparing Obama's victory there to Jesse L. Jackson's two wins in the 1980s. Bill Clinton made the same comparison to reporters that day, generating even more anger among African Americans who perceived it as a way of marginalizing Obama by portraying him as a black candidate who appeals only to black voters..."
(Note: The above, is another hole in Sean Wilentz's screeds that Obama is the one playing the race card. As mentioned earlier, Sean Wilentz is a jackass. Please feel free to use these citations when hacks like Wilentz propagate their false propaganda)
Possibly the most egregious example of breaking with party solidarity was the Clinton campaign's 'Commander in Chief test'. Hillary suggested that John McCain, a Republican, has crossed it, but that Obama hasn't.
"...And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold...
...I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy..."
Another was Hillary Clinton going after Obama on Rev Wright, his pastor, the very same man that the Clintons invited to the White House to deal with the Lewinsky scandal.
Now, we see the ad above. Using the same right wing frame and talking points of elitism and being out of touch that the Republicans went after Gore and Kerry with. Nevermind that Obama has already admitted that he did not articulate himself clearly and that the words he chose was wrong and not what he meant. Nevermind the fact that Obama DID NOT go after Clinton directly on Snipergate when he could have crucified her. Why? I believe that because he understands that it was not a policy issue/or related to policy and I believe that Obama is generally a gracious man who doesn't want to take gratuitous cheap shots. Evidently, Hillary doesn't possess the same grace.
Essentially the Clinton team is using the cover of future Republican attacks, to attack Obama like a Republican.
Now this is stupid for the most obvious reason. Let's say that Clinton manages to somehow convince superdelegates at the convention that Obama is unlelectable. We know that this would mean that many Dems, especially African Americans, the young and others would stay home or worse, vote for McCain because they are so angry, that Clinton would have to put Obama on the ticket. After all, the convention is late August and GE is too soon after for the divisions to heal.
But how can she put Obama on the ticket after making him unelectable?
The answer is she can't.
And because she can't, the Dems will lose the election in November in a year that they should by all rights win.
For Obama to be unelectable, she needs to make him so. If she makes him so, the Dems will lose whether she OR he is the nominee.
Unbelievable.
So that leads me to this question.
At what point does acting like a Republican, make you a Republican?