According to Scott Lehigh's piece in today's Boston Globe, it may as well read: "Thou shalt not criticize Hillary Clinton." Lehigh makes an interesting observation: Accusing one's opponent's of "piling on" is not, in the end, an effective counterattack. It fails to re-draw distinctions in your favor. It sounds whiny. Howard Dean took exactly this approach when he came under attack in 2003 ... and ended up losing the nomination to John Kerry. Here's Lehigh:
I can recall a similar incident back in the murky recesses of the last century. A sunny Southern candidate - William Jefferson Clinton, I think his name was - was running for president on his plans to help middle-class America. But when Clinton hit turbulence and a Massachusetts boy scout named Paul Tsongas suddenly had a shot at beating him, the personable fellow from a place called Hope abruptly changed his tone. Tsongas, who liked Clinton, thought he and the Arkansan had an informal agreement not to go after each other. But as the campaign moved south, Clinton's camp launched a sharp attack. Why after one candidates' forum, Clinton himself appeared in the press room and deftly sliced and diced the policy plans of his absent rival. That's politics. And as long as a candidate isn't engaged in distortion - something the Tsongas folks thought Clinton was guilty of - it's a valid part of the process, one that gives voters a window into the different records and positions of the candidates. So far, that's really all Obama and Edwards have done: draw distinctions.
I would add that, while it's not "valid" in Lehigh's book, distortion can still be effective, particularly if one's opponent doesn't fight back too well. So far, fighting back well is something Clinton has not done.