Divided Democrats face long, dirty campaign

There are reports this morning that the Hillary camp believe going negative won them Ohio and Texas and that they are planning more of the same before the next large vote in Pennsylvania.

Now, as Clinton was at one point twenty points ahead of Obama and finished way below that point, a counter argument could be made that going negative had actually cost her support. But from reading pro-Hillary blogs I can see that attacking Obama is what most of her supporters appear to want her to engage in as a sort of full time blood sport.

The Clinton camp signalled it would keep up the aggressive tactics. She is to hold an event today aimed at highlighting what she claims is Obama's lack of national security experience.

The contest is unlikely to be decided in Pennsylvania and could now continue all the way to Denver. The prospect of a prolonged campaign is alarming many in the party, who fear intensive in-fighting will help the Republicans. One compromise would be for Clinton and Obama to run on the same ticket.

Obama has 1,562 delegates, including the super delegates, members of Congress and other senior party members who have an automatic vote at the summer conference, and Clinton 1,461. It takes 2,025 delegates to secure the nomination. He is expected to extend his lead by winning the Wyoming caucuses on Saturday and the Mississippi primary next Tuesday.

One gets the feeling that Hillary has floated the idea of herself as President and Obama as Vice President - whilst threatening to increase her negative campaigning - almost as a threat to the party. "Give me what I want or I'll bring the whole house down".

After all, it's quite clear that she faces a gargantuan task in turning the numbers around. Short of an absolute miracle there is no way, even if we go all the way to Denver, that Hillary can finish this campaign with more delegates than Obama.

Nor does her threat to use more negative campaigning make any sense.

David Axelrod, Obama's communications chief, indicated yesterday that he expected the race would continue to be rough. "If Senator Clinton wants to take the debate to various places we'll join that debate," he said. "We'll do it on our terms and in our own way, but if she wants to make issues like ethics and disclosure and law firms and real estate deals and all that stuff, as I've said before I don't know why they'd want to go there, but I guess that's where they'll take the race."

I presume she's working on the assumption that Obama - offering a new kind of campaign that avoids negativity - won't be able to resort like for like.

Don't get me wrong, I thought she had a genuine point regarding Obama and NAFTA but, as Glenn Greenwald highlighted yesterday, I don't understand the cheap jibes concerning Rezko and can't find anything that even resembles a charge of wrongdoing against Obama. Indeed, as Greenwald states, Rezko is becoming a bit like Whitewater was for the Clintons. It's a word that comes to symbolise sleaze without anyone understanding what wrongdoing is supposed to have occurred.

"Rezko" is the Whitewater of the Obama campaign. It's almost impossible now to find an article or news account about Obama that doesn't include some dark reference to the "Rezko" affair, always with the suggestion or even overt claim that it's reflective of some serious vulnerability, some suggestion of wrongdoing and corruption. But what is it? The reporters throwing the word around quite plainly have no idea.

The point isn't that there is no credible evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Obama, although that's unquestionably true. It's far beyond that. There aren't even any theoretical allegations or suggestions as to what he might have done wrong at all. The person who is accused of wrongdoing is Tony Rezko, in matters inarguably having nothing to do with Obama. Nobody claims otherwise (although many try to imply otherwise).

But the Clinton camp can nevertheless be expected to continue using the name "Rezko" as if there are "questions that need to be answered" and asking us to watch and observe whether or not Obama is "stonewalling". It's a disgusting tactic.

But one gets the distinct feeling that, in her quest to get her hands on the Presidency, there is nowhere that Hillary won't go.

The whole thing is starting to make me feel slightly nauseous.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Clinton, Obama, US election 2008, Democratic nomination