By Courtney Goodloe

Once stenched it is damn near impossible to cleanse.

You know how when you step in some dog-poo -- you can try and try and try hard as you might -- but can never quite rid yourself of the smell -- short of obliterating your shoe?

Well, what will be the final, pathetic, Clinton campaign dirty-trick was the work of a staffer who missed Rove 101 but fancied themselves a master.  Was plausible deniability a casualty of incompetence, obliviousness, arrogance or just plain suicidal tendencies?

As they have all along, her campaign once again seems to miss the point that whatever else you do, your fundamental mission should be to attract voters -- no matter how preordained you think your win should be.  It seems so simple that presumably one should not have to explain this to professionals, but apparently we do.

The voters she needs to be attracting and re-attracting (not repelling) have either drifted from her camp or were in Obama's already -- which by very definition shows a part of their nature to be optimistic.  This group does not respond well to turd-hurling and will now be permanently alienated -- even if she were the nominee come the general.  Not to mention the increased likelihood of super-delegate defection as a response to trying to take the Party down with her.  And if Obama's the nominee, she has clearly abandoned the possibilities of a spot in his administration, or preserving an honorable Senate career, or running for anything ever again. 

Clinton's staff seems to have perfected the multi-tasking of the Titanic -- managing to re-arrange chairs, while playing in the band and stepping over women and children all at once.  For anyone looking for prioritization - finding this photo is what her staff has been spending its time doing.  This, after time and time again, the only negatives that rise when she goes negative are hers.

This apocalyptic scorch, slash and burn betrays a level of cynicism which astounds.   If you accept my premise above regarding what her strategy should be, then what possible logic could reside in their approach except that she's taking the ball home?

Contrary to the idea that the Republicans are relishing the 'dirtying' up - I'd imagine that their strategists are quite annoyed at the fact that Clinton is using up all their potential ammunition for the general.  And in the process, her campaign is giving Obama's an opportunity to further perfect its graceful deflect, defend and rise above moves.  Whatever doesn't kill you...

Oh - I thought of another possible explanation for her strategy - which I credit to NY Daily News columnist Errol Lewis.  His theory, offered early on, is downright Machiavellian.  That since the Clinton camp benefits from lower voter turnout, it in fact aims to disgust the electorate enough to induce apathy.  This was before we grasped the strength of Obama's campaign and its supporters' passion.  And abandoning losing strategies does not seem to be Clinton's strong suit.

Always several steps behind the electorate, the Clintons missed the part where we chucked the smelly shoes - a lesson lost on them while they continue to wear theirs.