I'll let you know when I see it. I'm not so naive to think politics is the province of angels. And I'm sure Senator Obama has some blemishes on his record, as most all successful candidates do. Nothing thus far adds up to much, though. The most troubling aspect of Obama's record to me is his ties to Tony Rezko -- but, thus far, they don't go any farther than Whitewater (which, didn't go anywhere at all, and not for want of looking.)

Where we would disagree, is that I think Clinton's campaign has gone beyond smart campaigning into outright Rovianism, for all the reasons I earlier outlined. You don't wear the ring, you destroy the ring. If we're going to act like Republicans to eat our own, we have no business complaining about the underhandedness of the GOP. None at all.

And then Bill Clinton gave a concession speech for Hillary -- shown on CNN and MSNBC -- in Independence, MO.

The double-headed candidate situation doesn't look to be ending quite yet.

The story is not Bill Clinton.

The story is Barack Obama.

Please, get on the right page.

Obama looked pretty happy about winning by 28%.

There's winning, and there's winning in a rout. But I can't say I'm surprised you bring up race. It's all the Clintons have done all week.

For what it's worth, Clinton and Obama pulled the same amount of white males. In South Carolina. (My home state, I might add.) That should speak volumes about Obama's transracial appeal.

But, look, you've been all over these boards spewing anti-Obama venom, so there's no real point engaging with you now. My old employer -- James Carville -- is wont to say, "Don't waste time wrestling with a pig. You just get dirty, and the pig loves it."

He is a wise man, and I'm going to invoke his advice right now.

What anon just said. Your current headline is misleading.

I'm a strong Obama supporter, but I agree: I like having John Edwards in the race, and he should keep on keepin' on as long as he so desires. He's run an above-the-board campaign, he's been consistent in his advocacy of anti-poverty issues, and he's kept the debates honest. Power to him.

Or perhaps the older generation is just set in its ways, and has been too beaten down over the past 40 years to see a paradigm-changing candidate when s/he arrives.

Obama '08.

"For those who are arguing that we need tough tactics in politics, does anything go?...Sometimes those complaints are valid because the tactics in question are way over the line -- for those who recognize that such lines exist."

I couldn't agree more. But for many Clinton voters, that seems to be the crux of disagreement, as I see it (and as I've posted in various other corners of Salon on the election.)

Dems shouldn't wear the ring, they should destroy the ring. Adopting the worst elements of Rove/Atwaterism is not and never will be the answer. It cheapens everybody and does dishonor to our progressive principles.

Now, for my part, the line was crossed earlier -- Clinton's Gordon Brown Giulianism, the attempt at voter suppression in Nevada, etc. But, while we may differ as to where the point of no return is crossed, it's reassuring to read that many agree there are some underhanded political behaviors in which Democrats -- and the Clintons -- should not engage.

"Paradigm shifts happen based on ISSUES. Obama is no different on the issues from Hillary. His campaign is based on his peronality and on being the first black President. That's it"

Obama's campaign is based on a good deal more, but I'd prefer to respond to the first half of your comment.

I'm sorry, was Ronald Reagan an issue-oriented policy wonk in 1980? Is that what brought "Reagan Democrats" into his camp?

On what issues -- other than ending the Depression, which all candidates were running on -- did FDR run in 1932? (I'll give you a hint -- he deliberately stayed as vague as possible.)

You'd be hard-pressed to find any ELECTION that was ultimately decided on the issues, much less a paradigm-changing election.

The election of 1860 was definitely decided on the issues.

And I guess you could make a case for 1896, but it's a reach.

"Take everything the Clintons have done to date, multiply it by at least 10, and then you'll have a picture of the fall race between Obama and a Republican nominee."

That may or may not be true, but that doesn't absolve the Clintons of acting like Republicans.

Glenn Greenwald put it very well today:

"As for the 'suck-it-up' defense that politics entails rough tactics and one can't whine about it, that is true as far as it goes...For those who are arguing that we need tough tactics in politics, does anything go? If it's the case -- as it certainly seems to be -- that part of the Clinton strategy is to depict Obama as the 'black candidate' comparable to Jackson's candidacy in the 1980s...is that all acceptable, all part of the "politics-is-a-tough-game" justification?

And for all the people who are labelling these concerns "whining" and insisting on the need for tough tactics: were you saying the same in response to complaints about, say, the 1988 Willie Horton campaign or the 2000 "McCain-had-an-out-of-wedlock black baby" slurs or 2004 Swift Boat attacks or this year's "Obama-is-a-Muslim" emails? The point isn't to suggest an equivalence between those attacks but to underscore the fact that complaints about unfair or divisive campaign tactics aren't inherently "whiny" or unrealistic. Sometimes those complaints are valid because the tactics in question are way over the line -- for those who recognize that such lines exist."

The Clintons, and -- happily a dwindling number, in this case -- many of their supporters seem not to recognize the existence of such a line.