Black Box Report

When do political attacks go too far? How much is too much? Obama foreign policy advisor Susan Power found out the hard way when she called Hillary Clinton a "monster" to a Scottish reporter, thinking it was of the record. Obviously it wasn't:

Power clearly made an inappropriate and intemperate comment...(It) was inexcusable, so she had to go, which is a shame.

I’m reminded that Power isn’t a political professional, accustomed to the difficulties of dealing with political reporters. She has an accomplished academic background, but that doesn’t necessarily prepare someone for serving as a campaign surrogate with a reporter. Power is accustomed to speaking her mind — and that, regrettably, is rarely a quality rewarded during campaign work.

But I still have a nagging feeling that Power is facing a punishment that is too harsh.

Perhaps if Power were more politically schooled in the ins and outs of not just life on the campaign trail, but the idiosynchrasies of European journalism - where "off the record" is almost quaint in notion and blistering schoolyard attacks from one politician to another are far more common - she may have caught herself before dropping the "M" word. But The Scotsman is a conservative paper, and they were certainly not going to cut the advisor of a liberal American candidate any slack. And while calling a fellow pol a "monster" across the pond would provoke only yawns, in American politics, you just don't go there.

So, name calling? Too far. But what about tax returns? Obama has called for Clinton to release hers, and Clinton responded by accusing Obama of employing negative Ken Starr-like tactics. Which, given her non-stop attacks on Obama the last few weeks, is ironic to say the least:

They say irony is dead, but Hillary Clinton's campaign may be on a mission to prove that wrong. In a memo today, the Clinton camp went negative on Barack Obama for, yes, going negative on Clinton.
......
Forget the inherent internal contradictions here; the Clinton campaign hasn't made any secret of its negative campaigning strategy over recent days. As a colleague observed -- correctly, we think -- the memo is sort of like starting a fight, then complaining when the other guy hits you back.

Not to mention that the Clintons either have no problem employing shameless hypocrisy or they have the collective memory of a sieve:

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Especially after it was Hillary who made "Mr. Lazio, release those tax returns" a key part of her 2000 Senate campaign against Republican Rick Lazio. Back then Hillary said it was "frankly disturbing" that a candidate would waffle over when they were going to release their returns. But now that she's the one waffling, saying she may release them "around" April 15 (if we're lucky), suddenly it's the Spanish Inquisition to expect her to be true to her previous word. (Obama released his returns a year ago.)

Was Hillary employing Ken Starr-like tactics then? I doubt she'd say so. But her playing the victim card is nothing compared to her latest strategy, criticizing Obama by saying John McCain would do a better job.

That's just not cricket:

It's one thing for Hillary Clinton to attack Barack Obama, the overwhelmingly likely Democratic nominee, in terms virtually identical to those used by John McCain, his presumed general-election opponent. It's another thing for her to do this while explicitly praising McCain relative to Obama.

There are certain lines that you do not cross in a primary campaign. And one of those is suggesting that your primary opponent, the likely nominee, is so unfit that that the Republican nominee might be preferable to him. This is spoiler territory, and Clinton should be ashamed.

The idea that Hillary and McCain have crossed some "threshold" due to their experience is questionable at best. Not to mention praising McCain's foreign policy creds won't help her with Democrats, independents or anyone outside Bush's 30%-ers:

Why does Hillary Clinton think McCain would be a better foreign policy leader than Obama? Now I expect millions of people around the country to agree with Clinton about that in November. Millions of people will, I think, decide that invading Iraq was a good idea, that staying in Iraq indefinitely is a good idea, that pushing the envelop of confrontation with North Korea and Iran is a good idea, that refusing to abide by any of our treaty commitments is a good idea, etc. Those people will, naturally, conclude that McCain would be the better commander in chief. That's inevitable. I expect those millions of Americans to be outnumbered by millions more who prefer Obama's approach and who want to see America pulled back from the brink and back toward something like the liberal internationalist tradition that's governed us at our best since the Second World War rather than to continue on the path of militarism and hegemonism that's been responsible for the bulk of our mistakes.

I had also taken it for granted that whatever Clinton did or said during the years 2002-2004 she wouldn't seriously be among the group of people who prefer McCain's approach. But is she? If not, why does she think he'll be such a good commander in chief?

If she thinks McCain's foreign policy ideas have carried him across the "threshold," then why is she running? Why wouldn't she just endorse McCain?

I don't think Obama attacking her on that would be too much at all.