THE BERNIE SANDERS “NEGATIVE ATTACK AD”

Now you may or may not agree with what the ad proposes.  And you maynor many not see it as a juxtaposition of where Mr. Sanders and Ms.Clinton are regarding big banks.  But how is it an attack ad?  Sanders did not mention Hillary Clinton by nameand does not say anything bad about Ms. Clinton – only that he has better ideasthan the competition – which we assume is a reference to her.  

That\’s an attack?  She\’s got to be kidding.

But when you\’re tied or losing in the firstprimary state, losing badly in the second primary state, and if most people whohave the political philosophy driving your party – which, in the Democrats\’case is hard-left – seem solidly behind your opponent, you better say something.  So that iswhat her campaign said.  Something.

And while it is true that negative attack ads can backfire on a candidate (which, presumably, is what Clinton\’s people have in mind), this in no way is the kind of ad that would generate such a result.  All characterizing it as such did was to make Clinton & Co. look ridiculous.  And desperate.  

The result?  Sanders\’ position in Iowa has not weakened; if anything, it has strengthened.  And that means Ms. Clinton is likely to get even more desperate.  

I will end by citing a few choice comments the hard-left show host Rachel Maddow, of (where else?) MSNBC, had to say during the interview she conducted with Ms. Clinton after the ad came out:

She sure does, Ms. Maddow.  I don\’t often agree with you, but, in this case, you have nailed it just about perfectly.