Release The Hounds

Dick Morris has been crusading against Hillary Clinton for some time now. But I don't quite understand his latest screed.

Here's the argument, in his words:

The Clintons' campaign attacks put Obama in a bind. If he doesn't answer in kind, he's toast. But if he does, they'll have forced him off his winning message of hope and change from the bitter politics of the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush eras [actually both Clinton and Bush ran on hope and change, their main difference with Obama being they had actually demonstrated their willingness to work with both parties]. If they pull him off his game and onto theirs, they can wrest away the Democratic convention victory that he's earned.The solution for Obama is clear: Reply in kind, but do it through surrogates.

So Obama can't attack or it screws up his content-free message of "hope and change." But somehow, having Ted Kennedy or Al Sharpton or whomever make these attacks on his behalf is acceptable. Am I missing something?