The main difference between the end of the Pennsylvania campaign and the beginning was how nasty it got along the way. Clinton's final ad features images of Pearl Harbor, the stock market crash, the 1970s oil embargo, Osama bin Laden and Hurricane Katrina. A voiceover says, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Who do you think has what it takes?"

Clinton aides declared in a conference call Monday that the commercial wasn't negative; it merely made the case that Hillary, not Obama, is most qualified to be president. Her campaign's phone calls to voters also accused Obama of lying about his position on gun rights.

Obama wasn't sticking to the high road, as he previously sought to do. "She is a hardworking public servant, but Senator Clinton does not understand the need to fundamentally change how Washington works," he said Monday night in McKeesport. "We can't have lobbyists and special interests setting the agenda in Washington." His campaign was running ads implying Clinton was using "fear and calculation to divide us" and making its own harsh phone calls to prospective supporters.

This writer describes Clinton's fearmongering political ad.

This writer reports that Clinton's camp lied to voters by telephone.

Then, this writer crafts a paragraph with the following topic sentence: "Obama wasn't sticking to the high road, as he previously sought to do."

And the facts that this interpretation of Obama was based on:

1) Obama claims Clinton doesn't understand the need to fundamentally change washington, that we can't have lobbyists and special interests setting the agenda in washington

Now, this is an attack on Clinton, and her worldview/philosophy, as a candidate, but reformers always run against the status quo, and I don't know that I'd call it the low road...

2) Obama accuses Clinton of using "fear and calculation to divide us" (presumably to her advantage).

This isn't really debatable, is it? Is Obama not to mention or decry these tactics?

3) his campaign was "making its own harsh phone calls to prospective supporters."

Were they harsh in the sense that callers lied to voters, or that they said unflattering things about Clinton in attempts to persuade them to vote for Obama?

And if they weren't lies but simply unflattering things, was their harshness due to the fact they unfair/sensational, or were they what neutral observers would agree were fair political arguments to make?

Given the naure of the first two, I'm not inclined to assume that "harsh" = low road here either.

Do you really buy into this?

Clinton has CONSISTENTLY contradicted herself:

-I'm white, vote for me/don't play the race card

-I'm a victim of sexism/don't complain about media coverage

-You're not qualified to be prez/ will you be my veep?

Etc., etc. Also, etc.

And every time she is criticized for her lack of basic honesty or coherent persona—she crys foul and plays innocent(Why this unprovoked attack?)

Hillary is fooling you, or you have your own reasons to play along.

Don't shit on the dinner table and tell me it's creme brule.

Her victory speech was quite lovely. Obama misspent time talking about "special interests." Too abstract for the moment.

Actually, it's pretty tangible, and it's the real reason so many Pennsylvanians don't have jobs.

How do flag pins strike you?

What I don't like about the current stalemate is that so many people who are not Barack Obama supporters insist Clinton's victories have nothing to do with the real concerns of her supporters

Well written. Though I am an Obama supporter, I can see why this is. Clinton has a lot to offer, but her major push of late hasn't been trying to redefine American politics (etc.), but smear Obama in silly way. She's pushing her own negs up along with his.

It's a shame in more way than one that Clinton—whose hard work and intelligence are indisuputable—should be reduced to this caricature, and that we Dems should be so easily dividable.

But I agreed with ABC's Jake Tapper today (disclosure: he's an old friend and a former Salon staffer) that there's something a little bewildering about stone-tablet insistence Obama just can't win states like Pennsylvania or Ohio. Why not? Seriously. He'll have another shot in Indiana, where he's been ahead, though right now he trails Clinton slightly.

I'm with you here. Especially considering the absurd positions McCain will arguing for (and his scandals, etc., etc.).