There's a huge reaction right now to this speculation of Billy Shaheen, Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire co-chair, regarding one of Obama's potential weaknesses in the general election:
"The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use," said Shaheen....
Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would "open the door" to further questions. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."
How terrible! How awful! How dare he bring up something personal in the context of it possibly making Democrats a target, or as a problem of electability that needs to be discussed. Obama would never do something like that. Or would he?
Certainy he would. He already has.
What exactly was Obama doing when he said this while speaking about Hillary's supposed divisiveness?
"I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists
He was concern trolling, the same as Sheehan, (and so sadly and sincerely, too) over the scandals and smears of the 90's being a problem. He did not spell out which "unfair attacks" he meant, but come on, we already know them all, now don't we?
He was raising the question of whether her personal baggage will be a divisive issue in the general. Kind of like Sheehan saying Obama's drug use might be. Not her policies, not her positions, not her votes, but speaking of the "unfair atacks on the Clintons" (plural, natch, he made sure to include Bill). He was talking about the dirt, folks, plain and simple.
Obama himself, not just a campaign chair, has already raised the spectre of old personal scandals and dirt against Hillary. Yet some are in frenzies of howling outrage now, because the idea that Obama's personal baggage might be an attack point in the general, was raised by her campaign. Obama's past as regards likely unfair attacks on personal issues is sacrosanct, while Hillary's is fair game for him to raise? I don't think so.
The hypocrisy here is astounding. Jesus Christ on a waffle cone, you'd think no one here had ever been through a primary before. No one is The Holy One in presidential politics. They are all politicians. Every one of them. And Obama has been attacking Hillary with a smile and a subtle knife for months now. Pull off those rose-colored glasses, get off your high horses, and get a grip. He's a good candidate and a good liberal, but he is not St. Francis of Assisi, any more than she is.