Dick Morris explains Hillary's strategy in attempting to turn Obama into just another black special interest candidate:
[I]f blacks deliver South Carolina to Obama, everybody will know that they are bloc-voting. That will trigger a massive white backlash against Obama and will drive white voters to Hillary Clinton.
Hmm, we are talking about earnestly progressive Democratic primary voters here - are they really that race-conscious? Tricky question - we hope and believe they are not racist, yet Dems live and breathe identity politics. Will white Democratic men get behind the black guy or the white EveryShrew? Tough call.
Of course Obama is not without resources - Ben Smith of The Politico explains that he seems to have decided to lash Hillary to her hubby:
He's joking publicly about his two opponents, and his campaign is now referring to the Clintons, plural — rather than just the New York senator — in statements to reporters.
It's a move that carries risk as well as promise: On one hand, Bill Clinton is a beloved figure among many Democrats and more popular than his wife.
But on the other, the former president is the face of the past, and his high profile may diminish that of his wife.
Maybe the Clintons can finally dump "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" as a campaign song and pick up "Yesterday". [Oh, this is cold. C'mon, sixty is the new forty, which makes Bill and Hil about fifty, right?]
This bit of analysis seems strangely one-sided:
In fact, Obama and Clinton are both in uncharted waters, particularly when it comes to how the dynamic will affect the female voters on whom Clinton depends. Will they be jarred away from Hillary by Bill's emergence as an equal partner?
Daren't we wonder how men will respond to this? Will even more men see "her" campaign as phony, thereby further expanding Obama's gender gap? Or might men take reassurance that Bill is really in charge now?
My free advice to the Obama camp - Obama is funnier and more charming than either Clinton, and ridicule is likely to be a more effective weapon than anger (picture Wild Bill being laughed at...). This radio ad is angry, not funny. Since Hillary said this was the fun part, why not give her some fun? Think about it.
MORE: I am sure it has been said before but the writer's strike has got to be helping Hillary right now - don't you think that if Leno, Letterman and Stewart were alive they would be mocking Bill?
GAIL COLLINS, TROUBLED:
[Ms. Clinton's] biggest error was taking a major policy role in her husband’s administration. During the 1992 campaign many people, including me, were offended when the public seemed to want to limit Hillary to the adoring gaze and cookie-baking role. But the public was onto something. It wasn’t Hillary’s gender that was the problem, it was her status as spouse.
It’s almost never a good idea for the boss to bring a husband/wife into management. It muddies up the lines of authority, and it lets personal relationships contaminate the professional ones. As every sentient being on the planet knows, the Clintons have an extremely complicated marriage, and sticking it smack in the middle of the chain of command caused chaos.
The implicit promise of Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy was that she had learned from Clinton I. In her, Americans would have a candidate who had been in the very center of White House decision-making. And the very fact that so much had gone wrong was added value.
...Now, Bill’s role as Chief Attack Dog undermines all that. If he’s all over her campaign, he’s going to be all over her administration. Instead of the original promise of the thoroughly educated Hillary, we’re being offered the worst-case scenario — that the pair of them are going to return to Pennsylvania Avenue and recreate the old Clinton chaos.
...It’s a story, all right, with Bill at the center. If Hillary expects anybody to get misty-eyed about the first woman president at the inauguration, she’s got to send him home and go back to the original plotline.
If you liked the politics of the 90's you'll love Hillary's sequel.