Clinton Campaign sounding more like GOP every day

So it's now desperation time.

With Obama's big win in Wisconsin the cheesehead firewall has been breached.  I have always thought that WI was actually must-win for Clinton and getting blown out there does not bode well for her in TX and OH.  She may yet win one or both of those states, although I doubt it, but it nomination is now out of her hands, the only think that could save it is some Obama mistake or other outside event.

The question now becomes, how much damage is she willing to do the frontrunner and presumed nominee and, by extension, the Democratic Party.

Let's find out:

First we get news this morinng of the 527 being set up on Clinton's behalf called The American Leadership Project:

ALP has developed three ads aimed at pushing the idea that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, is a talker and not a doer -- the ads are called "If speeches could solve problems" -- and they will contrast Obama and Clinton on issues of importance to middle class voters, such as the economy, health care, and the mortgage crisis.

Sound familiar?

To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.

Who said that?  The name escapes me. . .
How will they fund this project?

They're canvassing Clinton donors for pledges of up to $100,000 in the hope of raising at least $10M by the end of next week. The money will be placed in the account of a political committee organized under section 527 of the tax code.

So, unable to match Obama in campaign fundraising, they are going to round up donor's who have $100K to spare and use it to attack Obama.  Does that sound familiar?  I thought the best response was a commenter on TPM:

Wow, how much extra cash do you have to have lying around that you could be convinced to invest it in Hillary Clinton's sinking ship?

Why not just take it to Vegas and put it all on red. At least then you've have a chance of actually winning something.

Heh ineed.  However this line of attack is nothing new and I actually thinks it does a couple of good things for Obama:

1. This is the exact same kind of things the GOP will throw at him in hte general, better to get used to it now.

2. It gives him a great excuse on the whole public financing non-issue.  When McCain tries to call him out on flip-flopping he can say that the rich GOP backers will use their wealth to finance "independent" attacks just as the Clinton supporters did.  He can then emhpasize his small-donor base as being a true "campaign of the people" and that the only way he can compete with the wealthy Republican establishment is by letting people, not the federal government, support his campaign.

So let's move on.  Next we have an introduction of Clinton by Tom Buffenbarger president of the machinists' union (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers)last night in Ohio:

Buffenbarger called Obama a "thespian," and he sarcastically referred to the junior senator from Illinois as a "wunderkind." He compared Obama to "Janus, the two-faced Roman god of ancient times." And he pleaded with the crowd to boo Obama’s labor record.

. . . .

Channeling Howard Beale from the movie "Network," he yelled into the microphone, "Give me a break! I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine. He's a poet, not a fighter."

Whoa! latte-drinking prius-driving trust find babies?!?  Nice way to take the cartoonish right-wing characterization of liberals and inject it into the primary.  As Yglesias (who initially led me to that quote) points out:

If you genuinely believe in your heart that Obama is too green to be president, and that the person with more Beltway experience belongs in the White House, then by all means keep saying that stuff but if you would prefer Obama over McCain if Clinton can't get the nomination then you do need to consider what the impact of having high-profile Democrats going on record claiming that the likely Democratic nominee can't do the job is going to be. That's a different kind of thing than hitting him on his health care plan, or pointing to his sometimes off-base environmental record in the Senate.

Many will argue that this is just politics as usual and that all will be forgotten in the fall.  And that may be true, but it certainly will not help the cause if the McCain campaign can trot out quote after quote of prominent dems stating that Obama lacks the experience and toughness to be president.

Finally back to something I (and many) have harped on before:  FL and MI.  As we all know FL and MI were stripped of their delegates by the DNC after moving up their primaries.  Here is what Clinton said about this at the time:

We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process, and we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

And, in an interview in NH explaining why she didn't take her name off the ballot in Michigan she said:

It's clear, this election their having is not going to count for anything.  I personally didn't think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot.

What a difference a few months and losing a whole bunch of primaries can make.  Now we have the latest salvo in the war, a new website www.delegatehub.com where you can learn a bunch of fun 'facts' about the delegates such as:

FACT: Florida and Michigan should count, both in the interest of fundamental fairness and honoring the spirit of the Democrats' 50-state strategy.

Fact? Umm. .. okay if you say so.  Why the change of heart?

Hillary won those two states and she did it with all candidates on an equal footing.

Really?  But what about the fact that hers was the only name on the MI ballot?

In Michigan, Sen. Obama voluntarily withdrew his name from the primary ballot to curry favor with Iowa. He was under no obligation to do so. However, his supporters organized a substantial vote for 'uncommitted' on the ballot, thus he is represented in the delegation.

[. . .]

The voters of Florida and Michigan should be heard and the delegates from Florida and Michigan should count.

So we go from "not going to count" to "should count" rather quickly.  How is this like the GOP?  Two ways, first the argument that the campaigns were on equal footing in MI is so transparently stupid it insults my inteliigence.  Treating the voters as ignorant rubes is something I expect from republicans, not my party.  Secondly, if we learned anything from Bush it's that one of the GOP's mantras is: Rules are for suckers.  This attempt to change the rules, rules she quite clearly agreed to, smacks of IOKIYAR and I expect better from my party.

Now all of this will probably fade, but I think it is informative to see just how far Clinton is willing to go to advance her political fortunes at the expense of the party.  I would like to think that Clinton understands this and is willing to balance her ambition with the prospects of the Democratic party, and I do think that.  I would just like to see a little more of it.