They are tossing away any sting that Hillary's gaffe had for her and any credibility they have left.

I guess they can't help it, they finally found a smoking peashooter.

I actually think Obama is the very definition of an invention, and he has to know that evidence of this will come out, and he will end up - once again - painted into a corner.

As for the "stir" - I don't know anyone who gives two hoots about the Bosnia trip; most of the people I have talked to have only commented on how at ease she seemed with the troops - "presidential" is how it is being termed.

I'm still trying to figure out what negative attack Clinton has launched against Obama - I guess it has come down to this: if she opens her mouth, if she dares to answer a legitimate question, she's attacking.  Got it.

I've been a Democrat my whole life and over the years I have become accustomed to seeing Democrats implode, but this contest has gone beyond anything I could have ever imagined.

...several of his oft-recited stories may not have happened in the way he has recounted them. Some seem to make Obama look better in the retelling, others appear to exaggerate his outward struggles over issues of race...

or this:

...Barack Obama, former street urchin and the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review...

or, generally, the bio stuff in his stump speech line is actually pretty intentionally misleading:

...But my own story tells me that in the United States of America, there has never been anything false about hope.I should not be here today. I was not born into money or status. I was born to a teenage mom in Hawaii, and my dad left us when I was two.  

What Edwards recognized is that HIS belief in his special abilities needed to be validated by the voters; when it wasn't, he quit.
With Obama, if you question that he has something unique to offer, you become a hater, racist scumbag.

It's kind if disappointing to see one democrat use it against another.  

Link

But this is simply disputing one of HRC's main claims about why she should be elected -- her experience.  She says she did X, and says that because she did X you should vote for her.  But she didn't actually, you know, do X.  So why vote for her?

This also hurts Clinton because one consequence of pointing out that her claims aren't true is that it helps feed a general public notion that the Clintons are shady and not to be trusted -- a problem -- at least until the past week -- that was more due to HRC's association with her husband than to anything she herself had said or done.  And for the Obama campaign the shadow cast on Ms. Clinton's character probably IS a secondary benefit of pointing out that Clinton did not do what she says she did.

But this is a far cry from what is traditionally thought to be a negative attack -- "Oscar Zilch doesn't wash his hands after going to the bathroom and Zilch has been caught having sex with Aunt Susie in bathroom stalls (and Zilch didn't wash his hands after that either)."  Or:  "Candidate Zilch is a dirty skunk who, along with his wife, traveled back to state Y (where Zilch's wife was governor) so the Zilch political dynasty could reap political benefit by presiding over the execution of a retarded man."

So in a strict sense, it is negative for the Obama campaign to point out that Clinton's vaunted experience isn't exactly what she claims it is.  But it isn't "dirty politics" in the way people traditionally think "negative attacks" to be.

Just like Rev. Wright was not negative (until people stepped into "Obama is a hate--monger territory."  There is a difference between saying negative things and negative campaigning I think.  

So to compare the response to negative attacks (that worked) in Ohio and Texas, to the original negative attacks, is silly. For example, going after Geraldine Ferraro came AFTER Hillary made Samantha Power resign.

Secondly, to conflate an attack like this, which is totally in bounds, with Hillarys, where she puts McCain above Obama, is silly too.

Hillary did what she had to do. If she had not gone negative on Obama before Texas, she might well have lost it all on March 4th. Now, Obama must go negative, in order to make sure Clinton looks just as unelectable as he does, or the Supers might give it to her.

I watched the You Tube Hillary quotes followed by her Visit to Bosnia.

When you see how vividly she tells the story, how she ran and how it was not exactly a Tea Party, and then see the video.... I don't see how that helps Hillary.

I suppose if ONLY the Bosnia Trip were shown, Hillary does look like a Commander-in-Chief, but even then, one has to ask how?

There are two problems here:

First, what role will Bill Clinton play when Hillary is president? If she was his co- C-in-C, will Bill be hers?

And second: do most Commanders travel to War Zones with their teenage daughters?

The Onion had a story this week about "Take Our Daughters To War Day", but The Onion used to be a parody in the old, pre-Blog America.

This bothers me for two reasons 1. Ive had it with a president who thinks his be all is his ability to invade and kill people and exaggerates situations for justification. I've had it with security defined as belligerence and aggression I will not be frightened into voting for some one because they are as insane as Bomb, Bomb McCain

2 Bill Clinton's sleazy finger waving talk on the 21st of how patriotic both Hillary and McCain are. Saying also they were such buddies that it would be a civilized campaign. If this is the case why doesn't she run with him? Why is she touting herself as a progressive Democrat, and basing her campaign on Republican reality.  

Once again there is a difference between pointing out issues and negative or personal attacks. Lying about the very reason you consider yourself ready to be commander and chief is not something that should be overlooked. Everything is Hillary hatred to you guys. The rest of us should all just fight this the way Hillary wants it, Gimme a break.

The NAFTA thing is the same. She stood and got really pissed about this attack on her which it turns out is true. I always knew it was I have a brain and was paying attention when the whole NAFTA thing was going down. The bs her campaign put out about the Canadian envoy was also quite dicey. Not negative campaigning it's at the heart of why she should be our nominee. When Bill stares wagging his fingers in my face I know it's trouble.

When Carville starts calling good Democrats Judas and you people still think this originates with Obama and any push back is dirty or negative, no wonder shes losing.    

All Obama is doing is pointing out her "inconsistent" talk...

1. They want to drive up Clinton's negatives as high as they can, to keep her from improving her standing in head-to-head matchups with McCain, because they know the Clinton campaign would use such polls as an important electability talking point with superdelegates.

2. They want to get the media focus off of Rev. Wright.

3. They want to demonstrate their toughness (to themselves, to the Republicans, and to those watchful superdelegates).

4. They want Clinton to feel there is a cost for staying in the race.

5. They want to remind superdelegates that Clinton would carry substantial baggage into the general election as the nominee.

6. They want to improve Obama's standing with white voters by artfully playing the Lewinsky card (as when they talked about the circumstances that led to Bill Clinton being photographed in the White House with Rev. Wright).

7. They are angry at the Clinton campaign.

8. They think -- contrary to the media conventional wisdom -- that Clinton can still beat them.

9. Because they can: the media continues to highlight the Clinton campaign's negative tactics in a disapproving way, but only rarely points out the intensified negative tone and rhetoric Obama's campaign has been using - even though it conflicts with the candidate's professed desire for a new kind of politics.
   

Good to see this.

The other negative attacks are ugly on both sides, but fair game and to be expected in a primary campaign.

Given Hillary's position as a highly unlikely nominee, I think her campaign is doing more harm than good right now for the Democratic ticket.  The impact of the negative campaigning against Obama is greater than for Clinton because he's the likely nominee, whereas she is not.