Remember Obama's soaring rhetoric, when he was going to go to the White House and change how things are done here in DC?  When he talked of how he was going to bang some heads together and "force" folks to work together from each side of that aisle?  We've heard it all before and the candidates who talk this line from our party usually lose - and they lose big.

Could it be that along the way that sheepskin fell off and voters discovered the wolf underneath?  The wolf who ends up using those same attack-and-accuse tactics of elections gone by.  Well after the last 6 or 7 weeks in PA we've seen just how ugly Obama can get despite his claims that he's leading us in a new direction.  The gloves have come off and baby they won't be put back on before we get to Denver.

There's been a lot written about this topic over the past few days.  Take a look at what Johnathan Weisman had to say over at the Washington Post the day after Hillary's huge win in Pennsylvania...

Obama's Gloves Are Off -- And May Need to Stay Off

Unable once again to score a knockout, Sen. Barack Obama is likely to make his new negative tone even more negative -- with a sharp eye on trying to end the Democratic presidential nomination fight after the May 6 primaries in Indiana and North Carolina.

(Ending it on May 6th?  Dream on boys)

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's victory yesterday in Pennsylvania has only accentuated the quandary that Obama faces: Stay negative and he risks undermining the premise of his candidacy. Stay aloof and he underscores Clinton's argument that he will not be able to beat a "Republican attack machine" sure to greet him this summer.  

snip

Obama himself took up the cudgel after Clinton delivered a victory speech in Philadelphia devoid of attack lines. Without naming Clinton, he suggested in Evansville, Ind., that she is a captive to the oil, pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies, that she "says and does whatever it takes to win the next election," and that she exploits division for political gain.

snip

But the candidate who rocketed to stardom as the embodiment of a new kind of politics -- hopeful, positive and inspiring -- saw his image tarnished in the bruising fight for Pennsylvania.

snip

"It's a real danger for Obama, and if you look at these recent ads, the messages they're delivering in all these conference calls, it's a far cry from last fall," when the theme of hope emerged amid calls for a more negative tone, said Democratic consultant Steve Elmendorf, a Clinton supporter.

Here's what Elmendorf was talking about re that conference call...

Today, the Obama campaign called a conference call with the express purpose of attacking Hillary's character over Bosnia. Obama surrogate Gen. Walter Stewart said the following:

"One of the inherent duties of the president of the United States is to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on Memorial Day. Now we can assume, and let's keep in mind that Senator Clinton has said she was under sniper fire, or she joked about, which to me was the cruelest part of all this, she joked about it with Jay Leno. We can make an assumption here that the honored dead within the Tomb of the Unknown was killed by a sniper. Imagine the lack of moral authority she has now to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on Memorial Day. I'll say this as a Vietnam veteran, hundreds, we can speculate about how the unknown died. But you go over to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall and will certainty there are hundreds on that wall that died under sniper fire. That's the incident I think in a nutshell."

...So, let's look at moral authority as the essential element of leadership. President George Bush, Sen. Clinton, Sen. McCain have squandered the moral authority of the United States of America and our ability to lead the free people's of the world; and the oppressed peoples of the world towards freedom. Sen. Barack Obama displays the moral authority we need for a change in Washington D.C. [Obama Campaign Conference Call, 4/19/08]

Ok so back to that Washington Post article...

If Obama's image was coarsened in Pennsylvania, the next round of primaries may do it even more damage. But Obama advisers say the campaign is in a far different place than it was last fall. The senator from Illinois is much better known nationally, with an image that will not be easily recast -- either by his opponents or his own tactics.

snip

In recent days, the Obama campaign has flogged Clinton's exaggerations about a long-ago trip to Bosnia, framed comments she made about MoveOn.org activists as her own version of "Bitter-gate, " and accused her of tactics reminiscent of Democratic nemesis Karl Rove. "Senator Clinton has internalized a lot of the strategies and the tactics that have made Washington such a miserable place, where all we do is bicker and all we do is fight," Obama said last weekend.

With Obama clearly favored in North Carolina, even he has called Indiana the "tiebreaker, " a state that adjoins Illinois but where Clinton voters hold sway in the working-class towns in the south. In the two weeks leading up to the Indiana primary, a Democratic strategist familiar with the Obama campaign said aides are likely to turn to the controversies of Bill Clinton's White House years -- Hillary Clinton's trading cattle futures, Whitewater and possibly impeachment.

snip

"There's a reason Sen. Obama and his campaign have ratcheted up their year-long assault on Sen. Clinton's character and ended the Pennsylvania campaign with a flurry of harsh negative attacks," a Clinton campaign memo asserted yesterday. "It's because they know that a loss in Pennsylvania will raise troubling questions about his candidacy and his ability to take on John McCain in the general election."

Hillary's new strategist, Geoff Garin wrote an op ed that ran in yesterday's Washington Post in which he points the double standards where the tone of this campaign goes.  He starts out by talking about the ad they ran in PA, where they point out the challenges that will face our next leader on day one and ask who voters think is best prepared to tackle those challenges.  He then points to an appearance on Meet the Press where Axelrod said Hillary wasn't prepared to bring the necessary changes to DC, and said the Obama campaign had sent out mailers to PA's voters calling Hillary "the master of a broken system." (and this is me here - ignoring the fact that his boss has been in DC since 2005 and is pretty damn cozy with big donors and lobbyists himself).  Take a look...

Fair Is Fair

So let me get this straight.

On the one hand, it's perfectly decent for Obama to argue that only he has the virtue to bring change to Washington and that Clinton lacks the character and the commitment to do so. On the other hand, we are somehow hitting below the belt when we say that Clinton is the candidate best able to withstand the pressures of the presidency and do what's right for the American people, while leaving the decisions about Obama's preparedness to the voters.

Who made up those rules? And who would ever think they are fair?

snip

It's an important distinction. The Obama campaign has chosen from its inception not to treat Clinton with the same respect. In fact, the Obama campaign has made an unprecedented assault on her character -- not her positions, but her character -- saying one thing about raising the tone of political discourse but acting quite differently in its treatment of Clinton.

Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, held a conference call with reporters and called Hillary "one of the most secretive politicians in America today" -- a striking personal charge in the era of Dick Cheney.

Axelrod described Clinton as having "a special interest obsession."

Obama himself has joined the character assault from time to time, saying, for example, that Clinton "doesn't have the sense that things need to change in Washington" -- a patently false and demeaning observation.

Garin then goes on to point to Obama's false claim during the last debate that he only talks about Hillary's gaff re Bosnia when asked.  But that was a bold-faced lie, as noted in this Fact Hub entry AND by the bit above re that horrid comment by a general during one of BO's press conference calls...

Source

Sen. Obama Falsely Claims His Campaign Only Talks About Bosnia When Asked
4/16/2008 9:27:24 PM

Senator Obama just said the only reason his campaign has raised Bosnia was because they were asked about it. That is not the case. The following are some examples of the proactive attacks they have launched:

Obama campaign memo: 'Clinton's fantastic invention of a sniper-raked landing is only one in a growing list of instances in which she has exaggerated her role as first lady.'"'Clinton's fantastic invention of a sniper-raked landing is only one in a growing list of instances in which she has exaggerated her role as first lady, particularly with respect to domestic policy,' a scorching campaign memo said in one of the harshest broadsides to date." [New York Post, 3/27/08]

Obama campaign memo: 'Unfortunately, Clinton's fantastic invention of a sniper-raked landing is only one in a growing list of instances where she has exaggerated her role as First Lady, particularly with respect to domestic policy.' [Obama campaign memo, 3/26/08]

Obama campaign memo: `Senator Clinton's claims about her visit to Tuzla, Bosnia - and the footage disproving her account - have created quite a stir. And with good reason.' Senator Clinton's claims about her visit to Tuzla, Bosnia--and the footage disproving her account--have created quite a stir. And with good reason. As the Associated press wrote yesterday: "What makes Clinton's situation unique--and the Bosnia embellishments so damaging--is the fact that the New York senator has built her candidacy on the illusion of experience. Any attack on her credentials is a potential Achilles heel." [Obama campaign memo, 3/26/08]

Obama campaign memo: 'The claims Senator Clinton makes turn out to be little more than stories.'"The refrain that Senator Clinton 'has the experience to lead on Day One' has been repeated endlessly since she entered the race. On closer inspection, the claims Senator Clinton makes turn out to be little more than stories. With the next primary less than a month away, it's time for Senator Clinton to finally face the 'vetting' she's so fond of discussing. Badly trailing in delegates, votes, and states won, she's going to need more than a new script to win the nomination. But if she wants to regain the trust of the American people, it would be a good place to start." [Obama campaign memo, 3/26/08]

Obama Press Release: `"Misspoke"? Clinton's Prepared Remarks on Bosnia Join Similar Stretches on FMLA, SCHIP, and NAFTA' [Obama Campaign Press Release, 3/24/08]

So back to Gerin's op ed...

The bottom line is that one campaign really has engaged in a mean-spirited, unfair character attack on the other candidate -- but it has been Obama's campaign, not ours. You would be hard-pressed to find significant analogues from our candidate, our senior campaign officials or our advertising to the direct personal statements that the Obama campaign has made about Clinton.

The problem is that the Obama campaign holds itself to a different standard than the one to which it holds us -- and sometimes the media do, too.

Hillary Clinton is a strong and determined person, and she will continue to discuss real solutions to America's problems and the need for strong leadership to implement those solutions -- even if she must play by a different set of rules than Barack Obama. But wouldn't it be better if in this campaign what's good for the goose were also good for the gander? After all, in America, fair is supposed to be fair.

Next up - Paul Krugman.  Sigh... I absolutely ADORE this man!!!!  

Self-Inflicted Confusion

A few months ago the Obama campaign was talking about transcendence. Now it's talking about math. "Yes we can" has become "No she can't."

This wasn't the way things were supposed to play out.

snip

Well, now he has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment -- yet he still can't seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.

snip

According to many Obama supporters, it's all Hillary's fault. If she hadn't launched all those vile, negative attacks on their hero -- if she had just gone away -- his aura would be intact, and his mission of unifying America still on track.

snip

Let me offer an alternative suggestion: maybe his transformational campaign isn't winning over working-class voters because transformation isn't what they're looking for.

From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama's soaring rhetoric, his talk of a new politics and declarations that "we are the ones we've been waiting for" (waiting for to do what, exactly?) would mean to families troubled by lagging wages, insecure jobs and fear of losing health coverage. The answer, from Ohio and Pennsylvania, seems pretty clear: not much. Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama's eloquence does not.

Yes, I know that there are lots of policy proposals on the Obama campaign's Web site. But addressing the real concerns of working Americans isn't the campaign's central theme.

Tellingly, the Obama campaign has put far more energy into attacking Mrs. Clinton's health care proposals than it has into promoting the idea of universal coverage.

snip

The question Democrats, both inside and outside the Obama campaign, should be asking themselves is this: now that the magic has dissipated, what is the campaign about?

Good question.  I hate to say it but I'm guessing his answer will be "more of the same" although that really wouldn't make sense because more of the same will still leave him without much of the core of Democratic voters that he's been unable to reach to date.  He's attacked Hillary over her healthcare plan, lied about it and misrepresented his own plan as universal in nature (it's not).

You know if he'd spent as much energy attacking the problems in our health care system as he has in attacking Hillary's plan, he'd be much further along the path toward winning over those Democrats he's been unable to reach thus far.

He also sent out more lies about Hillary to voters in Indiana re NAFTA - something he's been called on over and over again but continues to send out to voters.  Take a look...

Source

Sen. Obama's new Indiana mailer is full of misrepresentations on the candidates' positions.

1.) The mailer falsely claims that Hillary strongly supported NAFTA as First Lady and Senator. This is false - Hillary publicly said NAFTA was flawed as early as 2000:"What happened to NAFTA I think was we inherited an agreement that we didn't get everything we should have got out of it in my opinion. I think the NAFTA agreement was flawed." Former White House adviser David Gergen confirms that Hillary was `extremely unenthusiastic' about NAFTA as First Lady. Watch Video here.

2.) The mailer suggests that Sen. Obama has `always opposed NAFTA.' But in 2004, newspapers reported that Sen. Obama supported NAFTA and wanted to pursue similar agreements.

3.) The mailer hits Hillary for accepting money from lobbyists, but doesn't tell you that Sen. Obama takes money from lobbying firms, state lobbyists, former lobbyists and the spouses of lobbyists. He has accepted $2.8 million from firms that employ federal lobbyists, and ten of his top bundlers have been federal lobbyists.

Prior to his presidential campaign, Sen. Obama accepted contributions from lobbyists and PACs. In his 2004 Senate race, Sen. Obama raised $1.3 million from PACs and $128,000 from lobbyists. As a state senator, over half of Sen. Obama's contributions came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions.

4.) The mailer attacks Hillary for supporting permanent trade relations with China as a way to enforce fair trade practices, an argument Sen. Obama himself has made.

5.) The Obama mailer also hits Hillary for having support in the business community:

Just last week, Obama was bragging about his support in the business community:

Sen. Obama: 'I'm a big believer in business...That's probably the reason why I got such strong support in the business community in Illinois.' "I'm a big believer in business. I think business create jobs, I think that our economy has to grow in order for everybody to prosper. If we've got a shrinking economy, I don't care how the pie's divided. Sooner or later, we're going to have problems. That's probably the reason why I got such strong support in the business community in Illinois." [Sen. Obama interview with the Pittsburgh Post Gazette Editorial Board, 4/16/08]

Since the beginning of the Pennsylvania primary contest, we've gone from "silly season" to "ugly season" and this is only the beginning of it gang.  As that first Washington Post article pointed out, they could be talking about things that were dragged out, investigated 9 ways to Sunday and proven to be false back in the `90s in some desperate attempt to attack and divert attention away from his own shortcomings.

Maybe that's why he's gone and made big ad buys in all of the upcoming states.

Stay tuned.