For the last several weeks we have been inundated with statements from the Clinton Campaign (and some media pundits) arguing that their incessant attacks on Obama's patriotism, their use of McCarthyite "guilt by association", and attempts to make Obama look like a "cultural elitist" are all justified because "the Republicans will do it in the fall".
They justify lifting whole chapters from Karl Rove's Republican playbook as an attempt to demonstrate to Democratic voters and superdelegates that these kinds of charges will make Obama "unelectable" in the general election.
Many Clinton surrogates pick up the refrain with statements like: "Well I know Obama doesn't agree with those video clips of Rev. Wright, but that's what the Republicans will say about him." Or: "I know Obama's not really an elitist, but the Republicans will make him sound that way." Or: "They'll trot out all of his past associations, so it's important that we examine them now."
There are two things to say about this line of argument.
First, Clinton knows that her keyhole-sized chance of winning the nomination hasn't got a prayer if all she can do is make an argument to superdelegates for the "possibility" of what Republicans can say about Obama. The bottom has to fall out of the Obama candidacy. That requires a lot more than showing superdelegates that Obama might be vulnerable to Republican attack. They have to convince the voters that the charges they are raising are true -- that Obama is an unpatriotic elitist.
Clinton needs a stampede of superdelegates in order to win. That requires that Obama loses the final primaries by big numbers, and that his numbers in the national polls tank.
The problem for Clinton, of course, is that Obama is the furthest thing from an unpatriotic elitist, and that by relentlessly making these charges she has been raising her own negatives to dizzying heights.
The next time you hear the old "we're just bringing this up because the Republicans will say it", remember the kids in high school who used to go up to you and say, "I don't believe this about your friend Amy, but I'm telling you what other people are saying for your own good." Neither justification is true. In both cases they want you to believe the content of the personal attack.
Second, the general election will not be decided based on narratives constructed about past associations and old friends of the various candidates. And if it were the Republican slander machine would be equally well supplied by the Clinton's stable of past political and business connections (think pardon recipient Marc Rich).
To succeed in this year's general election, the Democratic nominee must convince voters that he or she is better equipped than John McCain to change Washington and lead America into the future.
Both Clinton and Obama bring some negatives to the general election fight. But Barack has a pretty short stack when compared to Clinton's 60% negatives, her difficulty making an emotional connection with the voters, and her positioning as an "experienced insider" in an election where the voters want change.
There is voter fatigue with the two-decade run of the Bush-Clinton show that has defined American politics since 1988. It's possible to imagine that even though McCain's election would, in fact usher in a Bush third term, many swing voters could be convinced that McCain is more about change and fresh approaches to future than Hillary Clinton.
The contrast of past and future, of change and the status quo, is crystal clear in a match up between the 46-year-old newcomer Obama and 72-year-old insider McCain.
Obama's ability to inspire enables him to reach out to independent voters that otherwise find McCain very attractive. It also gives him the ability to mobilize millions of young and African American voters that will change the electorate.
Most importantly, Obama's proven ability to mobilize at the grass roots gives him the credibility to convince voters that he can accomplish what they want most -- that he can lead a movement to change the way things are done in Washington.
The narrative that over incredible odds, a young African American Senator has challenged the conventional wisdom, won the Democratic nomination for president, and found 1.3 million grass roots donors to finance his candidacy gives him enormous credibility to argue that he can take on the special interests and force members of Congress to guarantee health care for everyone. It gives him credibility that he can lead a movement to remake our economy to benefit everyone and not just the wealthiest among us.
And, of course, Obama's judgment in opposing the War in Iraq from the first day, contrasts sharply with McCain's commitment to four more years of Bush foreign policy. Hillary Clinton's early support for that War does not.
To win the 2008 election, Democrats don't need to worry so much about all of the charges the Republicans will make about them and their pasts. The election depends upon what we say about the voters and their futures. In the end, that is why Barack Obama is by far the strongest Democratic candidate for president.
Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight. How Progressives Can Win, available on amazon.com