Hillary Supporters, Don't Her Tactics At All Disturb You?

Look, Hillary Clinton is my senator, meaning not only that I live in New York, but that I voted for her twice.

Edwards was my first choice for president and would still be if he were in the race. I now support Obama, not without wariness. But with commitment. And I'll sure try to stay engaged and watchful if he becomes president.

That said, I say this: Hillary's campaign tactics over the part few weeks have been shocking. I mean, scandalous. I mean, crossing some destructive Rovian threshold.

I know admirable people who are Hillary supporters. I just can't help wondering:

How can the recent tactics by HRC and some of her affiliates--the McCain and me stuff, the I-don't-think-he's-a-Muslim stuff, the Geraldine Ferraro stuff--not give her supporters profound second thoughts?

Or am I missing how this thing works? That essentially it's Mel Brooks' profound theory of the difference between comedy and tragedy, transferred to politics: If my candidate does something lowdown, it's a teensy mote in a grand and good eye. Whereas when your candidate does it, it's a godallmighty log--an ocular rotten redwood.

But surely, don't Hillary supporters not feel awful uneasy at what I've mentioned above? I've encountered a number of people over the last few days who've told me that they were still pretty undecided between Hillary and Obama--until now, when they regard her in horror.

If you're for Hillary, I'm puzzled how you reconcile these tactics of hers. Is it that she's been misunderstood? Is it that Obama has somehow done similar things too, eg, his stupid remark about Reagan's optimism? But surely these aren't equivalent?

Is this all just Hillary "playing hardball"? But there is hardball--and then there is Rovism. You don't think Hillary is getting awfully near Rovism?

Seriously, I'd like to know. Because I don't understand.

Appreciations to Uber.com, where this post appears in my blog Brain Flakes.

Also at.SmirkingChimp.com