The political world is atwitter about Sen. Obama’s increasingly tough attacks on Sen. Clinton. The attacks are certainly tougher:
“After the most secretive administration in memory, an administration that consistently misled the American people, we need a president who is going to be open and forthright,” Obama said. “I think last night’s debate really exposed this fault line. Senator Clinton left us wondering where she stood on every single hard question from Iran to Social Security to drivers’ licenses for undocumented workers.”
Cognizant of the potential dissonance between Mean Obama and Happy Obama, he added, “The politics of hope does not mean hoping that your opponents aren’t going to point out the differences between you and them…”
Fair enough. He’s proven he can attack and lower himself to the level of our current political discourse. Does that make him more worthy of votes?
I don’t know. If he abandons who he is – the hopeful, optimistic leader – in favor of becoming the person more likely to get votes – the nasty, attacking pol – order to get more votes is that a worthwhile trade?