There are two ways you can look at the way Hillary has been playing the primary game.
On several ocassions, like the latest here in Florida, and before, in Michigan, where Hillary made a deal not to campaign, and then, at the last minute, at best on a technicality, at worst, breaking her word, went in to raise money, as thought that's not campaigning.
Obama stood by, playing the good guy, living by his word.
That could make Hillary someone who doesn't keep her word, who is an untrustworthy liar. Not good for a president. Who would trust her to keep her word? On the other hand, that hasn't stopped Bush... or has it?
Then there's another point of view. Hillary is getting Obama to agree to deals that he doesn't understand all the nuances involved in. Once he commits and does as he promises, Hillary steps through a loophole, probably one that was intentionally drawn into the deal, that lets her, with at least a modicum of plausible denial, get away with finessing Obama.
One way, Hillary's a liar. The other way, Hillary is a three chess moves ahead, much smarter, more aggressive strategist, duping a simple, inexperienced novice with integrity and good intentions.
I'm not sure it's a black and white issue. What do you think?
