Prometheus 6

The real problem is the implication that there's something specifically wrong with Obama's ambition -- that he has no right to be where he is, challenging her for the nomination. There's a suggestion that he's somehow a usurper, which allows Obama supporters to charge that Clinton, without using the word, is accusing the Illinois senator of being uppity-- which opens up a discussion about history and entitlement that I can't imagine any Democratic front-runner would welcome.

Especially one that wants to claim she has Presidential experience based on being the First Lady...talk about uppity...

Does she want to take "credit" for the incredible upsurge on Black folks going to prison under her husband's adminsitration? 

Though Sen. Obama is making his own errors.

Mr. Obama knows that if he tries to include a mandate in the plan, he’ll face a barrage of misleading attacks from conservatives who oppose universal health care in any form. And he’ll have trouble responding — because he made the very same misleading attacks on Hillary Clinton and John Edwards during the race for the Democratic nomination.

O.K., before I go any further, let’s be clear: there is a huge divide between Republicans and Democrats on health care, and the Obama plan — although weaker than the Edwards or Clinton plans — is very much on the Democratic side of that divide.

But lately Mr. Obama has been stressing his differences with his rivals by attacking their plans from the right — which means that he has been giving credence to false talking points that will be used against any Democratic health care plan a couple of years from now.

Yeah. Health care. Worse, trying to get to the right of Hillary?? I mean, I respect her title and all, but when you're talking political alignment she's not Sen. Clinton. She's Hillary.

No one should be right of Hillary. 

Lessons for the Front-Runner
By Eugene Robinson
Friday, December 7, 2007; A39

One assumes that Hillary Clinton and her inner circle are rethinking their new strategy of singling out Barack Obama and attacking him on issues of experience, ambition and character. Of course, the first thing a rookie reporter learns is that one should never assume anything; if people were predictable, there would be no news. So maybe the self-inflicted bloodletting will continue.

Clinton was doing fine in the role of presumptive nominee -- serene of mind, generous of spirit, miles above the fray. Her authoritative voice and presidential bearing telegraphed that Obama, John Edwards and the rest of the Democratic contenders were all, essentially, just members of her supporting cast. It was only natural that they would attack her, since she was so far ahead in the polls. To respond in kind would have been beneath her.

But when those polls began to tighten -- as was practically inevitable, given how big Clinton's lead has been -- the Clinton campaign made two decisions that I'm still trying to figure out. Both seem risky, if not rash, and so far neither is really working.

The first was to elevate Obama to the role of co-star. Granted, this reflects the reality of the contest -- Obama is the one who's gaining on Clinton. The daily Rasmussen Reports tracking poll said yesterday that 33 percent of Democrats nationwide support Clinton and 26 percent support Obama. For most of the campaign, Clinton has enjoyed double-digit leads.

But she's still ahead by seven points, which would generally be considered a comfortable lead -- less comfortable when it's shrinking than when it's growing, to be sure, but still a big hill for Obama to climb. And in Iowa, the state that goes first, Edwards could still win or finish second in what remains a fluid three-way contest.

Clinton's decision to concentrate her fire on Obama threatens to turn him into the anti-Clinton. No candidate with negative ratings as high as Clinton's has an interest in signaling to voters who don't like her that there's one candidate to whom they might want to rally.

Even more questionable is the way the Clinton campaign has decided to go after Obama. "You decide which makes more sense," Clinton told a crowd in Iowa, "entrust our country to someone who is ready on day one . . . or to put America in the hands of someone with little national or international experience, who started running for president the day he arrived in the U.S. Senate."