Hillary said the following the other day, referring to the coming attacks on Obama's charactter:

"Now the fun part starts."

Wow - that sounds like a great headline for a newspaper article!

PS: The "fun part" will be when Hillary's negatives go up after she starts attacking...and everybody else's stay stagnant.

I'm uninformed on the latest from the campaign; please tell me how Clinton is attacking Obama's character?  

Much less in the general, I can't see how she expects to win a character debate in the primary. What's she going to talk about, Obama's little real estate snafu?  His admitted youthful drug experimentation?  Talk about the pot and the kettle.

Obama's response: "Looks like I'm gonna have to get out my kayak, 'cause it looks like we're heading for some Whitewater!"

Like Benen said, it's a nakedly Rovian move. She's betting that Obama won't have the cajones to make the  obvious counter-attacks. Giuliani is seriously considering switching parties right about now.

Personally, I can't wait for the "fun part" to begin. Iowa caucus goers wake up every single day and say to themselves, "Gosh, I wish unlikable Hillary Clinton would launch character attacks! That would  make me support her!"

Yep, Hillary is th new Rove. Obama looked at the last seven years and said, "this must change." Hillary looked at the same events and thought, "wow, if I did that I could really bust some balls."

I agree that this could play massively in Obama's favor.

God I hope she doesn't do it.  Not just because it won't work, but because It will be bad for everyone for the same reasons its bad for everyone that Obama's been flirting with the same tactic.  

Newdex:

You're probably right. Character attacks should probably be out of bounds in a primary, because are the types of attacks that can actually damage a nominee in the general election.

I'd qualify that statement by saying that thankfully, most of Obama/Edwards' character attacks on Hillary didn't bring up anything new - most voters already think Hillary is untrustworthy - because Hillary is untrustworthy. Perhaps if she were trustworthy and did not behave with such arrogance, "I never supported the war in Iraq. My vote was just to use diplomacy," this would not be a problem for her.

Regarding future attacks on Obama: If the guy has character issues, then they're hard to find. He seems like a genuinely nice guy...he has the average ego of a person who wants to run for President, but he seems to generally loath negative politics (notice how weak his attacks against Hillary are? Notice how they seem to disspirited?)

VA: Hillary's explanation of the war vote has been the same for five years.  How is this an example of untrustworthiness or arrogance?  

Here's the thing: Obama has more charisma than Hillary, true, but he's just as prone to holding complex positions on complex issues as Hillary is.  He's just as prone to approach things with a balanced perspective, looking for common ground and areas of compromise.  This is because, in my opinion, they're both smart, reasonable, well-intentioned people.  

Rest assured, the Republicans - with the brainless cooperation of the press - will have no problem turning these traits into disturbing examples of how he "doesn't know where he stands," "will say anything to anybody," "refuses to talk striaght" etc.  

Pretty talk about "a new kind of politics" is not going to change the way things work.  The problem is not just Republicans making character attacks based on manipulative distortions, its the press' eager willingness to go along with it.  If Obama, or anyone, wants to change it, they need to start now, denouncing it and calling it out whenever it happens.  But Obama seems to think he can take advantage of the dyanmic now, to beat Hillary, then put a stop to it in the general election.   Sorry, its not gonna happen.

Newdex:

VA: Hillary's explanation of the war vote has been the same for five years.  How is this an example of untrustworthiness or arrogance?  

Speaking for myself, on the face of it, it's not, but I - and I think a lot of others - don't buy her explanation. We think she either voted for the war [everybody knows that's what it was] because it was popular and she is in it to win it uber alles, or because she really is a nation-building hawk. Her "I wuz fooled" rap just sounds like a lie she's stuck to for five years.

Hillary's character attacks will backfire. The problem for her is that when she is attacked for being less than straightforward on the issues, it sticks because it jives with gut perceptions that already exist. Obama, by contrast, is seen as being honest, and having the guts to tell audiences what they don;t want to hear, as he has done in this campaign by telling Detroit automakers to raise CAFE standards and telling the NEA we need teacher accountability. Hillary panders, Obama tells it like it is.

So when she then tries to claim he is like her, she just cements the perception that she will say anything. She will drop even further in the polls after these latest comments. Iowans are smart enough to know better.