Can Hillary Play Hardball or Should She Play Nice?

Hillary’ new "3:00 A.M ad" has certainly stirred the Democrats. Oh, my, she may be providing material for McCain to attack Obama if Obama is the nominee as most male commentators seem to think. So, the question is can Hillary play hardball or should she play nice? Is winning everything? Should we do what “is best for the party”?

I’m for winning and playing and campaigning to win. Is this an unfair “attack ad”? I think it raises a good question that most are unwilling to even discuss because it appear that the Obama train has left the station and its’ all over, so, Hillary should fold, endorse and go back to wherever.

Obama's response to the ad is much of the same ... nothing substantive. He looks back at a vote he didn't make, because he wasn't there and says he would have made decisions, he didn't make because he wasn't there. Monday morning quarter backing is easy to do, because you aren’t there and everyone has 20/20 hindsight. This is like getting the “first question”.

The more telling response was his analysis of Pakistan in a previous debate when he quipped in his manly fashion that he would go after them regardless… That response became more refined after his handlers edited the version. Pakistan wasn’t amused.. “Tariq terms Obama statement as “Sheer ignorance”; Pakistan’s Ambassador in the United States Mehmood Ali Durrani has termed the White House hopeful Barack Obama’ statement as speculative and irresponsible. “… such an action along Pak-Afghan border tribal areas would lead to dire consequences.”

Also, think about his response to his endorsement of Farrakhan. Hillary was ridiculed for calling him on it, but it demonstrates his lack of depth of thought about a process. He initially stated that “He couldn’t help it if someone thought he was a good guy.” Chuckle, chuckle. It was Hillary who refined the point, insisting that, well you could do more, as I did in a similar circumstance. The boys thought her insistence that there be a more careful response was funny, “a tedious political trap”. He finally submitted and said well, ok, I’ll reject and denounce. Everyone chuckled and dismissed the woman as too picky. He and they still don’t see the difference.

So, it’s 3:00 am and the phone rings in the White House and there is a crisis because that does happen and we mostly don’t know about these times. Do you want the person making the decision to see fine differences and complexities in thinking about a problem? Do you want someone who will choose wise words and a wise course of action, or do you want a Monday morning quarterback who can tell you what he “might have done”? Do you want someone who blames an entire war on one woman’s vote while he embraces others as his endorsers like, Chris Dodd, who also voted for the use of force resolution and who, also, ridiculed Obama as naive on foreign policy after his Pakistan comments? It’s the details, tiny details that matter… to me.