What Positive Campaign?

For all of Barack Obama's talk about running a positive campaign based on "hope" and "change" and "bringing people together," he's as much a political assassin as his opponents.

Yesterday he suggested that John McCain was "losing his bearings" because McCain had the gall to point out that Obama is the choice of the terrorist group Hamas. McCain's statement was fully factual (a Hamas spokesman said several weeks ago that they would like to see Obama become president--for obvious reasons.) And yet the liberal word police--including Jon Stewart-- jumped all over McCain for talking about it. You aren't supposed to point out that America's enemies prefer the deer-in-the-headlights defeatist to the bona-fide war-hero.

Obama's full quote: "For him to toss out comments like that, I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination."

A). McCain aleady has the Republican nomination.

And B). "losing his bearings" suggests advancing age, a personal slam of the kind Obama said he was going to avoid in this campaign.

Sure he is.

He's no dummy. And he didn't get to this point by playing nice. He knows strictly positive campaigns lose elections. And he has no intention of losing.

Steel up, McCain. The Hope Guy has his weapon at the ready. And its got a silencer.

The McLaughlin Group

Please join us for The McLaughlin Group this weekend and every weekend. Remember that in New York, the show can now be seen on CBS (Channel 2) at 11am. In Washington, it can be seen on CBS (Channel 9) at 11:30am. In the rest of the country, it's broadcast on PBS as usual. Please check your local listings or visit www.mclaughlin.com for more information.

What Race Card?

In an interview with USA Today, Hillary Clinton said this: "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on." She then cited an Associated Press article that said "how Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me." And then: "There's a pattern emerging here."

Did you catch all that? "Hard-working Americans." "White Americans." "A pattern." Meaning: "I've got the white vote, which won't go for the black guy in November, so y'all better line up with me if you know what's good for you."

It's only a matter of minutes before she delivers a Bill-like "gaslighting" projection : "They're playing the race card on me."

Norma Rae...Or Norma Desmond?

Last night, Hillary Clinton suffered not one but two electoral indignities. First, she lost the North Carolina primary to Barack Obama by a whopping 14 points. Then, after midnight Eastern Time, came the bad news from Indiana: she had won, but barely. She kept Obama at bay by only 2 points.

Any way you slice it, it's not good news for the Junior Senator from New York.

Losing, of course, is a mere inconvenience for the Clintons. It was reported last week that Bill reminds her every day---lest she forget---that "we're not quitters."

There is nothing in the Clintonian psychology to suggest quitting. There is only defiance, and a disregard of reality. Those two inner motivations have produced astonishing success for them over the past 20 years. But all things come to an end, and the defiance and disregard of reality now look less like unbeatable ambition and more like psychopathology.

Hillary has spent her entire adult life as Norma Rae: the fighter who defies authority and the naysayers by muscling her way to the top and doing what she needed to do to stay there.

She has now become Norma Desmond: a sad facsimile of her former self, who has everyone around her so terrified that nobody is willing to tell her the truth---that the show is over, the career is over, and that she ought to go gently into that good night.

She won't, of course, because in her mind, she's still Norma Rae. But Norma Desmond is shadowing her, emerging now and again, telling anyone who will listen that she's ready for her close-up.

The Pork Rinds Mistake

The First Commandment of American politics is this: Never Try to Be Something You Are Not.

Voters see through it, think you are more phony than the average phony politician, and it always backfires.

When George H.W. Bush came into office in January 1989, he faced two challenges: 1. to get out of the long shadow of his predecessor, Ronald Reagan, and 2. to seem more accessible to the average American. During his 8 years as Reagan's Vice President, he noticed how much attention Reagan's bowl of jellybeans had received. Reagan loved jellybeans, and he kept a bowl of them on the desk in the Oval Office. The press loved the detail, and the candy's bright colors seemed to reinforce Reagan's sunny image.

When Bush 41 moved in, one of the first things he did was replace the bowl of jellybeans with a bowl of pork rinds, which he professed to munch as often as Reagan had popped the candy.

The problem was that even if Bush actually enjoyed the pork rinds, nobody believed he did. He was the son of a U.S. Senator, born and raised in Connecticut, the former head of the CIA and the Republican party, a former Ambassador to the United Nations, the first envoy to China, former vice president. The ultimate Eastern Establishment guy---eating port rinds? It didn't mesh. Bush had other issues that prevented his re-election, but the attempt to be something he was not didn't help.

Today, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are trying mightily to cast themselves as working-class heroes. She's turned into a Crown Royal-swilling, gun rights-protecting, tractor riding populist. He's turned into a beer-swilling, shirtsleeves-rolled up, hot dog-chomping Everyman.

Both are trying to channel Huey Long.

And neither of them is succeeding. Hillary (with Bill) has raked in $110 million (that we know about) in seven years, was educated at Yale, and grew up in the affluent suburbs of Chicago. Obama is also a multi-millionaire, was educated at Harvard, and attended prestigious prep schools.

Making money and having a fine education are both good things. But if you are running for president, you shouldn't be running away from them. If that's who you are, be proud of it. Embrace it. Be who you are. Cut out the "relatable" phoniness. Voters roll their eyes at it. As one North Carolina woman said this week after attending a Hillary rally, "I'm going home and doing laundry at 1am. She's not doing laundry."

The problem with trying to run as a "man" or "woman" of the people? In order to pull it off, you actually have to BE a "man" or "woman" of the people.

Watch What I Say, Not What I Did

In an attempt to show that she's got more testosterone than Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton has recently---and repeatedly---said that if Iran were to attack Israel, as Commander-in-Chief she would respond by "totally obliterating" Iran.

Asked yesterday by George Stephanopolous if she wanted to reconsider that policy, she said flatly, "No." Then: "Why would I have any regrets? I'm asked a question about what I would do if Iran attacked our ally, a country that many of us have a great deal of, you know, connection with and feeling for, for all kinds of reasons. And yes, we would have massive retaliation against Iran."

The beauty of the Junior Senator from New York, is that unlike the Junior Senator from Illinois, she's actually already BEEN president for two terms, so we can examine her record---and see if what she says now aligns with what she did then. After all, she's running on the "experience" she gleaned from her first co-presidency. And by her own admission, she was in on every major policy decision.

In 1993, when the World Trade Center was bombed by Islamic terrorists, she counseled her husband NOT to visit the New York site, because it would remind voters of his lack of military service. The response from the Clinton co-presidents? None.

In 1998, U.S. embassies were bombed in Kenya and Tanzania. The response from the Clinton co-presidents? None.

In the late 1990s, Saddam Hussein was shooting at American aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones. The response from the Clinton co-presidents? Targeted enforcement, and a signature on the Iraqi Liberation Act, calling for regime change in Baghdad. Follow-up by the co-presidents? None.

In 2000, the U.S.S. Cole was attacked by Islamic terrorists. The response from the Clinton co-presidents? None.

Several times during the late 1990s, U.S. intelligence services provided the Clinton co-presidents with credible information as to the precise whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, with immediate plans for his termination. Their response? None.

Today, she attacks President Bush for not using diplomacy and allies more aggressively, but on Iran, he has used both and they have failed. She assails him for even having a military option to consider, but she's saying that as president (again), she'd "totally obliterate" Iran.

Pick a side, Senator.

When Hillary tries to claim that she'd respond to an Iranian attack on Israel by wiping the Iranians out, look at her record. There's nothing there to suggest she'd go down that road. You may like that idea. But she's saying something else now. Just to get elected? Or would she really do it? And how to tell?

I'd bank on looking at her record.