I suppose it was to be expected. Obama lost in Pennsylvania because of Hillary's negative attacks. So now, the poor guy, in spite of all of his better instincts, is going to have to go negative?
This is what? The 100th time we've heard this. When, exactly, has he not been negative? I seem to recall his starting out the campaign by saying she was too old. Well, OK, he didn't exactly say she was too old. He just said, my paraphrase, that she was stuck in the old, adversary politics of the 60s. And it's pretty much gone downhill from there.
But there is a bigger issue here: the definition of "negative". As applied to Hillary, it appears to mean any attack of any kind against Obama: experience, positions, relationships with questionable people, public statements. None of these are acceptable targets.
Once upon a time, "negative" meant untruthful, distorted, grossly unfair. Now, at least for Hillary, it means any attempt to draw a distinction between her qualifications and his.
Similarly, "attack" is now a completely negative word. What, pray tell, should one call an attempt to draw distinctions between oneself and one's opponent?