How would Hillary respond to the slash-and-burn politics she's using? We don't know because no Democrat would go there. The GOP will.

Markos explains in pretty clear language why Obama didn't win. It's not that complicated, really, because it was expected for months. There is one point that stands out for me:

Rhetorical constraints. Clinton has nothing to lose, so she's thrown the kitchen sink and then some at Obama. Her path to the nomination necessarily requires her sundering the party in civil war, so if she pisses a few people off? Who cares! It's all part of the plan!

Obama, on the other hand, can't take that approach. He's already won this thing, so he has to tread carefully. He gets too aggressive with Clinton, he risks pissing off her supporters more than they are already pissed off (can you believe that Obama insists on staying in the race even though he's won?!). So he can't really open up on Clinton and make the same kind of arguments she's making against him. He's trying to maintain some modicum of unity rather than engage in the sort of slash-and-burn politics that now characterizes the Clinton campaign handbook. The inability to truly go negative is a real disadvantage in politics.

Hillary and her crew have really exploited this situation. She loves to invoke Rev. Wright and had a field day with the "bitter" comment. It's not like there isn't plenty of ripe material in her past that could be political fodder. But, Obama doesn't go there. The Republicans will. So, she is using the GOP attacks on Obama (the kind of attacks that the GOP will use on Hillary), but Obama, for the reasons Markos stated, doesn't respond in kind.

Any time any of the previous controversies or indiscretions of the Clintons are raised by anyone, her campaign gets all indignant and appalled -- like it's all some well kept family secret. (It's not, p.s.) But, all those Clinton scandals MUST never be discussed, it's too mean or too personal or too dated or something like that. Yeah, and the Republicans will accept that standard, right? We're not sure we really know how Hillary Clinton can handle those attacks because no one on the Democratic side will make them -- but we'll all be expected to defend her if she does steal the nomination. (And who knows what else is lurking out there.) That's something the superdelegates need to keep in mind. Do they want that Clinton baggage -- again?

Today, Senator Claire McCaskill broached that subject on MSNBC, via Ben Smith:

MCCASKILL: Well, it's a really difficult decision. I mean, no one in the Obama campaigns wants -- I mean, Senator Clinton talked about her baggage in the debate last Wednesday. And everyone is very respectful and deferential to the Clinton family in our party and we don't want to do that. But, frankly, they keep throwing nails in front of the bus. And as voters are considering whether or not some of the controversies around Barack Obama will be an issue in November, people do need to remember, there will be controversies about the Clintons that will also be an issue in November. And I think that's what we hope superdelegates also focus on.

Thanks for saying what so many people are thinking. The superdelegates should ask Al Gore how much the Clinton drama helped him in 2000.

Basically, the Clinton campaign's "slash-and-burn politics" is a gift to the GOP. The fact that Obama doesn't employ the same tactics is a gift to her. I'm sure this all makes Hillary's new best friend, Richard Mellon Scaife, very happy.

NOTE FROM JOHN: I've moved my note to its own post.