If you’re a Democrat, Republican or independent who wasn’t in a coma during Bill Clinton’s presidency you’ll remember that many of Clinton’s backers, Democrats and many other Americans argued that going after a politician’s private life was a way to “get” him when he couldn’t be gotten on the issues.

Republicans leaped not only over Clinton’s testimony but on talk-radio and in the press about the fact Clinton had an affair. It was NOT just about his testimony. And Democrats? They often decried it, saying it was the last refuge of those who could not engage Clinton on the political battlefield of issue debate.

Fast forward to 2007….and now a key backer of Senator Hillary Clinton has lashed out at former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in a highly-personal way…the same kind of way that Democrats decried and said had no place in politics when it was done by Republicans against Bill Clinton:

Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., the dean of the New York congressional delegation, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, longtime political booster of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and a member of the steering committee for “Veterans and Military Retirees For Hillary” has joined another co-chair of the Clinton campaign, former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, in attacking the personal life of Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani.

In a cover story on Giuliani in this week’s New York Observer, Rangel went after Giuliani in unusually personal ways, expressing confidence that Giuliani’s frontrunning status will fade either because of the former mayor’s liberal positions on social issues or the operatic drama of his personal life.

“Referring to Andrew Giuliani’s reportedly distant relationship with his father since the ugly bust-up of Mr. Giuliani’s marriage with Donna Hanover,” the article says, “Mr. Rangel said it was because ’sons respect and admire their fathers, but they love their mothers against cheating goddamn husbands.’ … Rangel said he regretted that all the personal problems surfaced so soon in the electoral process. ‘I’m sorry this damned thing turned out so early because, really, just like [embattled former Giuliani aide Bernard] Kerik, it would have bombed his ass out.’”

Why is this a mistake?

Rangel has thus veered the debate into the septic tank and politically-rough waters since (1) there are more than enough statements by Giuliani and issues on which Democrats (and his Republican opponents) can engage him (2) Republicans could use this comment to again talk about Bill Clinton and his scandal’s impact on his family (3) Rangel has thrown the issue of personal conduct into a campaign in which he plays a prominent role for Ms. Clinton at a time when she needs to place her main focus on convincing that 50 percent of the voters who will not vote for her no matter what that she is not the Hillary Clinton they disliked during the Clinton years.

You also have to wonder about whether Rangel is guilty of political negligence.

His comment immediately gave the Giuliani campaign a chance to decry the issue being raised. And it clearly put the Clinton campaign in a tough spot:

The Giuliani campaign declined to comment to ABC News about the attack, referring a reporter to comments made in the story by Randy Mastro, a former Giuliani deputy mayor, who said of Rangel’s remarks, “Comments like that are not worthy of a response.”

Giuliani and Rangel have long had a contentious relationship.

Asked Saturday afternoon outside Oak Park Elementary School in Des Moines, Iowa, if she had any comment on Rangel’s remarks, Clinton tersely said, “I don’t.” She added that she had not seen the story in question.

A Clinton campaign spokesman, Phil Singer, later told ABC News of Rangel’s remarks, “These kinds of comments have no place in the campaign.”

There is a segment of Americans that not only might not refrain from voting for a candidate because of divorces or affairs but might be so turned off by a clear effort to discredit versus debate that the camp of the candidate making the charge could be hurt. Rangel apparently forgot how impeachment proceedings did not destroy Bill Clinton’s poll numbers but seemingly strengthened them.

The fact Rangel had to latch onto Giuliani’s personal life as an issue suggests frustration at engaging Giuliani on substantive issues.

The question is whether this is a behind-the-curtain peek at what will unfold if Giuliani gets the nomination.

If so, Giuliani’s chances of winning are perhaps greater than some thought because if this is an “issue,” it suggests Giuliani will have plenty of chances to consolidate his standing on issues while Democrats raise the issue that many of them decried when it was used against Mrs. Clinton’s husband. It didn’t bring down Mr. Clinton’s poll numbers, it’s unlikely to do with Giuliani and it will give an opening for the Giuliani camp to raise the issue of the Monica Lewinsky scandal in response.

And directly into the gutter yet another political race will go…

UPDATE: And so it goes: Red State has a few choice things to say about Rangel..