"The Problem" will, no doubt, not be a problem for Bernie Sanders's positively uplifted supporters. It's not an attack ad, they'll say. It's merely a "contrast ad," which is how Sen. Sanders described it yesterday morning, not yet knowing, of course — of course not — if it would be running in less than 24 hours. "Do I plan on running more contrast ads?" he asked before a breakfast assemblage of reporters. "I don’t think we do, but that’s something we are still talking about."
What makes the now-running 30-second "Problem" a "contrast" rather than an attack ad? Nothing. That's the difference.
Would it be too cute, too coy for the Sanders camp to argue that omitting mention of any particular "bought-and-paid-for" Democratic opponent frees the Sanders camp from the charge of hypocrisy? Has the virtuous, never-negative Sanders campaign stayed its course of political chastity? Respectively, yes, and no. It will be entertaining, however, to listen to the Sanders camp argue no, and yes.
Yet what's more remarkable (oddly enough) is that Sanders is only doing what Sanders must do. He has slipped or he's slipping or at least he believes he is slipping in Iowa, hence this attack ad. Sanders's politics is merely regressing to the "mean": If one is slipping, one gets nasty. This is perhaps the oldest law of politics, and here, Sanders is nothing if not law abiding. Accordingly, I don't blame him one bit. He had no choice in going on the attack. Iowa is tight, a loss there could weaken New Hampshire, and South Carolina could be both devastating and dispositive.
Sanders, then, is merely behaving as any other politician would. Will his supporters concede the obvious? Will they concede that he's guided by the same old political playbook, which rather taints the fresh, "revolutionary" aspect of his campaign? I doubt it. It'll be refreshing if I'm wrong.