The Clinton Family Brand

Again, the ability to lead the masses against the monied interests is the thing - that's delivery.

And the Big Dog is going to trash the brand if he doesn't learn to keep it in his pants, metaphorically speaking of course. South Carolina will definitely be the test and it won't be just blacks who will get pissed if the "Clinton brand" steps over the line.

I've read that, separately, Rahm Emanuel (no shrinking violet himself) and Ted Kennedy have privately asked Clinton to tone it down. Not sure how much good that will do -- Clinton obviously believes there is too much at stake to stop now. I don't like that on so many levels.

But let's be blunt: behind every successful candidate there's a hatchet man, the one who represents the candidate's evil twin, the one who allows the candidate to remain above the fray while getting the message out that his/her opponent is heinous and must not be elected.

Yeah, it's a generational thing, it's an old school thing. But it doesn't mean it won't work. If we know anything about the Clintons we know that they play to win.

And so you have to ask yourself: when was the last time the Democrats had a candidate (not named Clinton) who conducted a campaign like that? They'll need that quality in the fall if they get the nomination.

John Edwards may TALK about being a fighter; but the Clintons can show you what that means when you put it into practice.

Yeah, well, I think it’s fair to say that few have advocated for more Democratic scrappiness – against Republicans at least – than I have. But even against Republicans, Democrats need to fight fair (they act too much like Republicans already).

From dday at Hullabaloo:

"But there WAS a real-world impact to the lawsuit brought by Clinton allies to shut down the Strip caucuses, and particularly Bill Clinton's comments that those employees' votes would "count five times as much" as regular Nevadans. This is a complete and utter falsehood, but coming from a former President, it had weight."
[snip]
"Bill Clinton saying that he personally heard a union rep threaten an employee is just not credible. This plays into a growing racial gap that I saw on display a little bit at the Wynn casino caucus."

And Obama is no shrinking violet either:

"It's a scorched-earth strategy for the Obama campaign to call up the ghosts of 2000 in Florida and 2004 in Ohio in the context of a Democratic primary where the allegations are murky. It will cause a severe rift in the party and could have implications into November. I don't think anybody comes out of Nevada looking good, sadly."

Indeed.

...even against Republicans, Democrats need to fight fair (they act too much like Republicans already).

Honestly? I think that's beside the point. The real point, as I see it, is that we can't assume that the other side will fight "fair." Democrats have to think like the Republicans; if we can do that, then anything is possible.

As for Obama, who I support over Clinton, this is turning out to be an expensive lesson. And if this is how he handles things under friendly fire, how is he going to do when the Republicans come after him?

And since dday brings up 2000, I will say that history shows that there are no do-overs. History also shows that you can't be pro-active by simply insisting that the big dog not eat your lunch. He will always try -- and usually succeed -- because it's just in his nature.

Obama: Don't say you weren't warned.

I'm pretty sure that Obama can handle the Big Dog.

But he doesn't have to lie, fracture the party or sully himself in the process.

Time and again, we're seeing Obama's greatest strength also be his weakness: his post-partisan detachment allows him to take a punch, but it also keeps him from throwing any either. The response you link to is fine, but what's he doing when the cameras aren't pointed at him? He knows how to play hoops; surely he knows you've got to throw some elbows under the basket.

P.S. Meanwhile, here's how you do it when the cameras are watching:

I've been really proud of the way [Hillary] has approached African-Americans in this campaign and said, 'Look...I've got a lifetime of commitment to these causes, a lifetime of involvement...a lot of the African-Americans who are supporting me are doing it because they know what we've done together.

If you can't be with me for obvious reasons I respect you, and when this is over we'll be together...This is going to be an election in which we are coming together through debate and disagreement and discord and even, you know, sharp elbows in Nevada — we're gonna somehow...this is America, this is the election in which we broke all the categories, and I respect you.' I think that's the only thing you can say.

Yeah, they're good.

However:

"If Hillary can't keep him under control during the campaign, what's going to happen if she ends up in the White House."

My take, partisanship-wise: Obama is turning CW on its head and courting independents now (they are mostly "Reagan Democrats") - get it? - and will turn more partisan in the general when "he's forced to" by partisan Republicans. And, yes, I think he's that smart.

I like Doris Goodwin a lot. In addition to having read several of her books, I know her from her many appearances on the Imus Show (where she fit into the I-Man's Rat Pack by playing a cross between Marian the Librarian and Beatrice Ocean).

Her greater point is spot on:

what Obama was trying to say was, if you want a transformative presidency, if you want somebody who is going to be able, as Teddy Roosevelt was, as FDR was, as perhaps John Kennedy was, to inspire and move the country forward, you've got to have those skills that Ronald Reagan had. It's an historical fact! There was nothing wrong with saying that.