Hillary for Spoiler!

To be fair, Hillary has been on the campaign trail working for Obama and gave a great concession speech. But the new Atlantic article that has everyone buzzing, sounds like a perfect strategy to possibly pull off an upset. The strategy is disengenous, cheap and right out of the Republican play book the Clinton's once decried. Why is this article showing up now? Who leaked it? And why?

McCain has voted with Bush 95% of the time. He is pro-life, anti-gun control and wants to make Bush's tax cuts permanent. He supports the unpopular war in Iraq and has undermined his only status as a renegade. Why is it that all we are talking about is Obama? Maybe because that's the only way McCain can win.

Chris Wallace of Fox News actually asked campaign manager Rick Davis both why McCain was being so negative yesterday and why so much of that negativity was based on misleading information. Fox, you say? At least someone is asking the rights questions. The bigger question though is why the press has decided to play along so readily. Sure there are negative stories about the negative tone of the campaign, but they are doing little to get the conversation back to the issues themselves. They are playing along with the trope that this election is a referendum on Obama, rather than on someone who seems to want to continue the work of Bush -- one of the most unpopular (and inept) presidents in history). This seems to follow 2000 and 2004. Democrats really need to learn to influence the tone of elections to their favor rather than always playing defense. The media abets the process, but in my mind so do democrats.