The Clinton – Obama firestorm that erupted yesterday over Maureen Dowd’s column that included some candid comments from Hollywood mogul David Geffen about the Clintons, doesn’t appear to be over yet. It’s really a sorry mess, as I noted here yesterday and very disturbing to see the attacks starting so early in the primary season.

Hillary Clinton has made it very clear from day one that she’s “in to win” and now the question is to what lengths will her campaign go to bring that to fruition?

Geffen’s feelings about the Clintons are no big secret to anyone who pays attention to politics, they are old news, actually, as “one adviser, who is not part of Mrs. Clinton’s day-to-day inner circle but speaks to her regularly about politics and fund-raising” noted, “Mr. Geffen’s comments might not shock ‘political insiders.’”

So what’s all the hoopla about then? Media attention envy?

Other advisers said the Clinton camp was simply frustrated that Mr. Obama had received glowing media coverage, and was eager to call out his campaign for hypocrisy by contrasting the Geffen remarks with Mr. Obama’s pledge to be positive.

Were members of the Clinton camp lying in wait for Obama or someone connected to him to slip up? One Clinton adviser seems to think that’s the case…

“Obama has gotten under the campaign’s skin for weeks now — especially his free ride in the media —and Hillary’s people were just waiting for their first chance to attack his image as Mr. Positive,” said one Clinton adviser who is not part of the day-to-day political operation.

But, here’s the problem I have with that omission buried at the end of the NY Times piece… On Wednesday after the mud started slinging Hillary Clinton said, “I want to run a very positive campaign, and I sure don’t want Democrats or the supporters of Democrats to be engaging in the politics of personal destruction.”

So why the attacks on the Obama campaign? They certainly weren’t random if what the unnamed adviser said was true, “Hillary’s people were just waiting for their first chance to attack his image as Mr. Positive.” Now it looks like everyone’s gone negative and we’re in for a long, nasty food fight of a primary season, if this is the first episode.

I can’t help but wonder if the assault on Obama was not perhaps an effort to draw the heat off of Hillary for her her Iraq vote which seems to keep sticking in the craw of some voters. Hillary was challenged again on Wednesday “to explain her vote for the 2002 resolution authorizing the war and her reluctance to call that vote a mistake or to express regret for it.” It’s a non issue to many Dems at this point, but one thing is for certain, the Clinton – Obama food fight certainly changed the subject quickly and took the focus off the heat Hillary has been drawing on the Iraq vote issue. Which makes perfect sense if you think about that statement from the Clinton adviser. They saw their opening to change the discussion and they took it. Kind of reminds me of tactics we’re all too familiar with from the other side of the aisle.

IN THE BLOGOSPHERE:

Filed under: Democrats, Election '08, In The News, Iraq, Politics | Get Permalink or trackback |