Over the weekend, Hillary Clinton made what could be the biggest mistake of her campaign to date. 

At a news conference Sunday in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, a reporter asked Clinton if Barack Obama has a "character problem." Her response, as reported by Pat Healy of the New York Times? "It’s beginning to look a lot like that," she said. "I have said for months that I would much rather be attacking Republicans and attacking problems of our country because ultimately that’s what I want to do as president. But I have been for months on the receiving end of rather consistent attacks – well now the fun part starts.” According to Healy, she "punctuat[ed] the word 'fun.'"

Say what? Politicos recognize that "attacking" opponents is a necessary part of the nomination process (even if voters, who typically inveigh against negativity while allowing it to color their perceptions of the candidates, don't always agree). But "fun"? Not so much. Whether a slip of the tongue or a revealing glimpse at Hillary's true colors, expressing joy, rather than resignation, at dissing a fellow Dem gave Obama a priceless opportunity to reinforce the caricature of Clinton as a conniving, calculating pol. "This presidential campaign isn't about attacking people for fun, it's about solving people's problems," Obama said in a statement. "Washington insiders might think throwing mud is fun, but the American people are looking for leadership that can unite this country." Somewhere, Obama staffers are scouring the Web for a clip of Clinton's comment. YouTube awaits.

Coinciding with Obama's recent rise in Iowa polls, the "fun" quote capped the first full week of Clinton on offense against her colleague from Illinois, and underscored why her campaign, despite it's vaunted intensity--or perhaps because of it--might be ill-equipped to beat back an Obama insurgency.

The week started well enough. First came Hillary's health care onslaught--a series of speeches, press releases and conference calls designed to draw attention to the major difference between Clinton's plan (it includes an individual mandate) and Obama's (it doesn't).  Reasonable people disagree on which proposal will insure more people in the end. But because Clinton can claim hers is "universal," she comes off (politically, at least) as the bolder wonk.

So far, so substantive. But the Clinton camp quickly overplayed its hand. First, they slammed Obama Saturday for working to lure out-of-state Iowa undergrads to the caucuses--even though Clinton imported supporters for the J-J Dinner and has reportedly encouraged non-Iowan students to caucus, too (as the Obama camp quickly noted). Then on Sunday Clinton sent out an email blast objecting to Obama's recent claim that "I have not been planning to run for President for however number of years some of the other candidates have been planning for" by alleging that he has, in fact, planned on it since writing an essay called “I Want To Become President"--in kindergarten. "I'm sure tomorrow they'll attack him for being a flip-flopper because he told his second grade teacher he wanted to be an astronaut," said Obama press secretary Bill Burton. Zing!

Clinton's weekend carping tells us little about Obama. I'm not sure voters mind that he wants to mobilize every available student and actually, you know, be president. (So does Hillary.) But it tells us a lot about the Clinton campaign's idea of "fun." Readied in the ruthless, roughhouse world of New York politics--Howard Wolfson, Phil Singer, Blake Zeff and Jay Carson all toiled under Chuck Schumer--her press shop clearly relishes (and excels at) throwing the first punch. With Obama gaining in Iowa, they finally have an excuse to indulge. (Neither of Clinton's recent volleys drew particularly compelling contrasts or defended aspects of her record.) But while Obama's "politics of hope" once prevented him from criticizing Clinton without appearing hypocritical, it now allows him to dismiss every clever (but ultimately insubstantial) Clinton charge as proof that she's playing "politics as usual"--thereby boosting Obama's outsider appeal. What was bad for offense is now good for defense. Listening to Obama characterize Clinton as a typical pol is one thing; he did that for months to little effect. But watching him bait her into behaving like one is another. It's much more convincing.

When attacking Obama, Clinton should, I think, stick to substance. I'm not an issues-only idealist. Far from it. But Clinton's policy portfolio is, in many ways, stronger than Obama's--and policy, in this case, just seems like good politics. To preserve her aura of inevitability, Clinton needs to derail Obama among Iowans. That's job number one right now. 

And something tells me that their idea of fun isn't the same as hers.