Clearly the pushback from the liberal blogs is making some noise with the Clinton campaign, because Peter Daou (who I know in real life and think is a great guy) has written a lame defense of the campaign's latest strategy of trashing Barack Obama and lauding John McCain's experience in order to make a contrast.
I've seen a number of blog posts criticizing Hillary for drawing a contrast on national security with Sen. Obama.
Actually, most of those blog posts criticize Sen. Clinton for stressing the alleged superiority of her "experience" (you know, eight years largely consisting of White House dinners and Christmas tree decorations now qualifies as the "commander-in chief threshold"), and her insistence on trumpeting John McCain's "experience" over Barack Obama's youth.
Winning in November means defeating John McCain and it is not only legitimate but essential for Hillary to make the case that she is the Democrat who can stand toe-to-toe with Sen. McCain on national security.
And winning in November isn't helped by describing the Democratic frontrunner as wet-eared know-nothing.
Now if you want an example of a false negative attack that provides fodder to the GOP, look no further than the Obama campaign's repeated allegation that Hillary will "say anything" to get elected.
It's not false when Clinton campaign officials have changed their message a thousand times since her declaration of candidacy. It's not false when Clinton campaign officials push stories about Obama dealing drugs, or the current line that says John McCain is more worthy of leading the country than Obama. The truth is not a false negative attack.
If drawing a contrast on national security is so destructive to a candidate in a general election, how does it help to make the patently false claim that your Democratic opponent will "say anything" to get elected?
The Clinton campaign has decided that it will lay waste to the Democratic party if she cannot get the nomination. Mathematically she will not overtake Sen. Obama's delegate lead. She has compared him to Ken Starr, surrogates have made racial insinuations, and those are only the shenanigans that have come to light so far. Shes gone from fair competition to destructive. It's not "drawing a contrast", these are patently false negative attacks that not only undercut Sen. Obama, but in the longterm they once again undercut the Democratic party on the vital national security issue.
If someone is hell-bent on taking the party down with their chances, it's clear she really will say anything to get elected.