Penn Primaries, Obama's b.s.?

The talk surrounding the Obama campaign's recent switch to more aggressive tactics is confusing. How much is he actually ratcheting up the rhetoric? This Washington Post article (front page), for example, is all about his "offensive." But it doesn't quote anything specific he has said.

And it's especially confusing because when Hillary plays straight out of the Karl Rove handbook and releases a fear mongering ad featuring Osama Bin Laden, it makes you want to speak out against it--it is only natural to speak out against that kind of crap.

So Obama's in a bit of a quagmire because he's spoke out repeatedly repeatedly repeatedly about not being caught up in the attacking part of campaigning, that he's more focused on the future and change and blah blah blah, but he's in danger of appearing like a wispy hope mongerer if he gets all aggressive now.

On the other hand, if there ever will be a time to be inconsistent and attack, it's now.

The Pennsylvania primary will probably play a big role in the nomination and if Obama can come out within 10 points of Clinton, it should be enough to carry him through.

But what do you do as a politician who claims to be focused on changing the way politics is run when the way politics is run is chipping at your ankles? Do you stoop down and succumb, taking off the gloves and shooting back? Or do you try and transcend it all, hoping and praying that the voters appreciate it?

Truthfully, no matter what he does I think Obama's going to lose Pennsylvania by more than 10 points, and I think we're in for a brutal summer in which it will be difficult for Obama to keep up his pace with the hungry, fanged Clinton campaign chomping at him.