its unfair to charge clinton with giving attack ideas to McCain

[Lerkfish]

its unfair to charge that she is giving ammunition to the republicans from the attacks that Clinton is now using against Obama.
In fact, in a bizarre way, Clinton's over the top attacks have metaphorically innoculated him against the exact same attacks from the republicans. Not because they won't use the same attacks, they will, but because it gives him practice deflecting them, and deflect them he has reasonably well so far.

Certainly not Clinton's intent, but I think she's serving welll as a good sparring partner that fights as dirty as the republicans. She's actually toughening him up for the general election.

However, I don't think its a fair charge to make to say that the republicans would never have thought of these attacks without CLinton. I'm sure they had these attacks and more already in their arsenal.

so, yes, it was horrific to watch the flailing clinton campaign meltdown launch into these desperate attacks, but he weathered reasonably well, so I think its all good.
The only one really hurt by all this is Clinton herself. I think she can pretty much kiss goodbye any future runs at the presidency.

this is all IMHO, of course.

and I would say that Obama was not my first or even my second choice, but he's grown on me quite a bit , and a good deal of that regard has come in how he has deflected attacks. I've also been impressed with how he has run his campaign, and how he has organized state by state with a strong upswell of volunteers and has managed to get young people enthused about his campaign.

so, I would only consider valid the charge that Clinton ran her campaign poorly, but I think its invalid to charge that the way she ran her campaign somehow negatively affects Obama's ability to deal with the republican attacks. In fact, I think the opposite, I think she's actually better equipped him to do so.

so, I'm actually saying thanks to Clinton for running such a low down negative attack campaign. In the long run, it only helps Obama in the general.

I've thought about this all day, and this is what I'm now seeing that I didn't see earlier today.

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. While making a tasteful "no comment" on your assessment of Hillary

I agree with the thrust of your OP. I'm glad you started a thread - we both posted on another one at about the same time. I'll repeat my post also and kick your OP while doing so:

You can't "give" the Republicans obvious campaign fodder. They already have it waiting on both of them. The G.O.P. have legions of staff digging up that kind of stuff, except they won't be polite about it. For example, there are Republican Senators on Obama's Sub-Committee that hasn't met yet. I think they may already have noticed, and of course they will throw that against Obama whether or not Clinton mentioned it first. It helps for both candidates to scope out where they are most vulnerable now so they can make corrections. It might for example influence who each would choose as their running mate if they realize they need some propping up in some area.

I see Barack Obama sharpening his tools and becoming a MUCH better debater each time he goes up against Hillary Clioton, and she in turn has shaken off being viewed by many as Bill's wife to emerge more strongly as her own person in the public eye. This contest, as grueling as it is, is making both of them stronger and helping each campaign find out where they are solid and where they are weak now while there still is time to make needed changes.

[Lerkfish]

2. completely understood. I"m glad you got my main point.

And actually, my assessment is more of the Clinton campaign than Hillary -- I think Mark Penn is highly overpriced and woefully miscalculated for his client.
Still, she doesn't have to listen to his bad advice, but the really horrible thing is he walks away with 10 million of her campaign's money, some of it from hard working people who donated, and even if/when she loses the nomination, he pays no real consequences.

I hope, if nothing else, that this season will wean us off reliance on "consultants" to determine how to run a campaign. I think each candidate should simply be more themselves and less a packaged product. I think Bush was the straw that broke the camel's back on packaging a president. Succesful, but disastrous. The voters deserve better.