Hillary not an attack dog?

I found a post referring to this at Born Again Redneck.

In an article, “Clinton turns down hatchet job,” The Australian a Murdock publication says: -

HILLARY Clinton may be the most obvious choice to throw into the ring against the new darling of American politics, Sarah Palin, but the failed Democratic presidential candidate is refusing the job.

"We're not going to be anybody's attack dog against Sarah Palin," a Clinton insider said yesterday.

It's an extraordinary act of hubris from a woman whose success in exposing Barack Obama's weakness in working-class Democratic states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana may have been the reason that John McCain chose a gun-toting, God-loving mother of five as his running mate.

Although she is 60 and unlikely to have another shot at the White House, Clinton is apparently concerned that she would appear ungenerous to the Republicans' first female vice-presidential candidate if she were to go after her.
It is a rationale that will fuel the belief - lingering among Democrats since Al Gore's failed 2000 presidential run - that the Clintons always put themselves before their party.

“An extraordinary act of hubris?” Where do they get this from? Why would it be in any way identified as conceit to refuse to be the hired gun against a Vice Presidential candidate?

Obama is fairly clearly out of his depth against Palin, he and his organization have thrown a hysterical mud slinging campaign of vitriol against her and have only managed to make themselves look decidedly grubby.

Now he has the gall to ask Hillary to carry on with it, while he (as is his usual style) has after letting it go on for a while to try to make it stick, has sent out new ‘talking points’ to lefties “Don't attack Palin. People love her. Attack McCain.”

This is coming from the guy who accused Bill Clinton of racism. There are a lot of nasty names you could call Bill and be quite correct, but racist is not one of them.

The remark that sparked this was: -

“Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina twice in ‘84 and’88, and he ran a good campaign, and Senator Obama has run a good campaign. He has run a good campaign everywhere. He’s got a good — He is a good candidate with a good organization.”

Obama called the remarks hallmarks of the politics of racism.

As for that ‘lingering belief among Democrats’ that Al Gore failed in his 2000 presidential run because the Clintons always put themselves before their party, from my recollection of the campaign, Gore wanted to distance himself as far as possible from Clinton as he felt that the scandals surrounding him were a liability.

The Democrats are going to blame Hillary for Obama’s loss anyway.

They are a lot like the Australian Labor party who seem to have the idea as someone once quipped, “It isn’t whether you win or lose, But how you lay the blame.