I agree with Little Lord Baltimore that this kind of behavior makes me sad for the Clinton legacy which could be so much more important in the long term than the tiny little battle points that she keeps trying to score...

But this reminds me of the blame shifting strategies that have characterized Clinton's campaign.

1. She begins with an arguably negative insinuation. Like the insinuation that Martin Luther King was a dreamer while LBJ passed Civil Rights legislation....

2. She then proceeds to defend the insinuation in its most positive interpretation. Yes, LBJ did technically pass the Civil Rights Legislation....no, she didn't do anything wrong in placing the emphasis the way she did.

3. She blames Obama's supporters for "thinking" that she was wrong. (ie her attacks on the Sunday morning program a few weeks ago alledging that it was all Obama's supporters fault that they had gone nuts over her LBJ statements and that it had nothing to do with poor phrasing on her part).

4. On a part of her website, Hillary's Hub, she notes the entire incident purely in terms of an "attack" from Obama.

I once had a therapist explain to me this concept called the Victim's Triangle. In dysfunctional families people get stuck in a triangle where they only see the world in terms of

the Victim , the Victimizer and the Rescuer .

I'm sorry to say that Clinton seems to be stuck in the same Bermuda territory. She is not even completely convincingly stating that her campaign is definitely not responsible for the photos--and yet against any possible allegation of wrong-doing, she claims that she has been victimized by Obama's campaign.

This is beneath the Clinton legacy, and it makes me sad for her. For the first time I feel ashamed of Clinton politics and the way that they play them. Why doesn't she just say she'd rather focus on the issues, if it was her people, that she will say something to them, and let that be that. Why does she need to feel victimized by HIS people just for thinking that she might have had some responsibility? Lashing out at half the Democratic party...the half that has supported him....just crowds her supporters into a smaller and smaller territory, unfortunately.

Clinton is a Junior Senator, and so is Obama.

There's no evidence that she has more "no how" of how to get bills passed in Washington than Obama does. Their records in the Senate are similar if not slightly balanced toward him. She doesn't have a legislative record of "can do" like LBJ. That is a myth.

Also, I might need to change my mind about Clinton staying in the race. If this is all there will be. No positives all negatives all the day long. Then maybe it's time for someone to run against McCain. We might as well (Democrats) start drawing blood from someone who is not our own.

tired fingers typing...

If you BO supporters are this shrill about HRC's campaign, I fear for your mental health when you're up against the Republicans. We're on the same side, remember. Just wait for the real smears and the real swiftboaters to come at your man. You ain't seen nothing yet.

Obama supporters are shrill.

If you are refering to negative campaigning below the belt, we have been watching it for several months now:

1. Obama is a muslim trying to destroy the world (from a regional coordinator volunteering for Clinton in Ohio)

2. Obama is an articulate muslim (from Bob Kerry at a Clinton rally)

3. Obama's campaign is like Jesse Jackson's (from Bill in South Carolina)

4. Obama loves the ideas of Reagan (Hillary ad in South Carolina)

5. Obama doesn't use his own words/write his own speeches (from Hillary)

6. Not to mention the Clinton supporter writing about Obama being a Rovian plant and referring everyone to her City Edition story several times a day...anonymously or as factcheck 1 or 2...

This photo is very close to being the last straw for me. Clinton's supporters can vote for McCain if they choose to--in order for Clinton to run again in 2012 and win...but that kind of shows where the campaign is.

I think what I'm most upset with when it comes down to it is how unintelligent her campaign treats ordinary people...as if ordinary voters are not worthy of being spoken to "on the level." If she thinks its fine to show a picture of Obama wearing a turban, then why doesn't she just admit that one of her supporters sent it? If she thinks that American people are stupid enough to think that there is only one shot at health care, and thus Obama is a horrible person for wanting to take a small step before he takes a large step toward universal coverage, then why doesn't she just say so?

I suppose that there is no point in arguing about this though. People only see the side of the picture that they choose to see.