You're already wrong in your first paragraph.

By the time Obama supporters were taking issue with Clinton's use of "fairy tale," the first shots had already been fired. For one, by then President Clinton was already deliberately misconstruing Obama's record on Iraq (hence, the whole dismaying "fairy tale" monologue in the first place.)

By then, Senator Clinton was already indulging in the Giuliani-esque politics of fear (Gordon Brown getting tested on his first day, yadda yadda yadda), had sent out mailers blatantly falsifying Obama's record on abortion and social security reform, and -- most depressing -- had denigrated Obama's appeal as little more than "false hopes."

So, don't try to pretend that Senator Clinton was the aggrieved party here, because that dog won't hunt.

If you were the generation of RFK, as you claim to be, then perhaps you should think twice about supporting the candidate of "false hopes" forty years later. I'm sorry about what happened in 1968 -- it was tragic and changed this country irrevocably for the worse -- but that's no reason to give up hope now.

I've logged some experience in DC too, including several years working directly for the Clinton machine. She and her husband have betrayed their legacy. If you can't see that, maybe you need to examine your own motives.

Or, on her game, I should say, since that seems to be what her campaign completely relies upon these days.

Put simply, the Clintons can't find the level below which they will not sink. They've embarrassed themselves, and all of us who once backed them, and who once believed they were more devoted to the liberal/progressive cause than their own fortunes.

The best case scenario for Bill and Hillary Clinton now is 1976. They manage to thwart a popular movement in the party for four more years. But, win or lose, the tide is coming, and the Boomers aren't getting any younger.

Posters keep acting like we Obama folk think he's some sort of angel. He's not. Obama supporters aren't blind to the compromises he's had to make along the way -- as The Wire puts it, that's all in the game. But he's been much more above board than the Clintons have proved themselves, for reasons already discussed, and if this is not his cycle -- which is still very much an open question -- the next one will be.

Time is on our side. And, to conflate musical metaphors, the old road is rapidly agin'. So get out of the new one, if you can't lend a hand, 'cause the times, they are a-changin'.

If we're not going to hold our party's candidates to a higher standard, if we're gonna start thinking it's okay to coopt the blatantly dishonest smear tactics of the Republicans -- as Clinton is -- then we have fundamentally lost our way, and I want no part of it.

Put another way, you don't wear the ring. You destroy the ring. Both Obama and Edwards have refrained from indulging in the scorched-earth Rovian playbook, and power to them. Clinton has not. And, much as we need change in this country, we don't need another four years of Democrats acting like Republicans when it's electorally convenient for them.

Since you're both making the same argument, I'll respond in one post, if you don't mind.

What do you think, at this point, differentiates Senator Clinton's campaign from the Rove playbook? Repeating distortions over and over again until people think they're true? Check. Trying to swiftboat Obama at his point of greatest strength (opposition to the Iraq war)? Check. Sending out brazenly false mailers on abortion and taxes? Check. Painting the candidate as a flip-flopper based on out-of-context Senate votes? Check. Indulging in union-busting rhetoric when useful? Check. Wallowing in the politics of fear? Check. Encouraging wedge divisiveness by rather blatantly playing the race card? Check. Voter suppression? Check. Chain e-mail smears and robocalls? Check.

In other words, is there a line Clinton could cross in this primary campaign, in your eyes, and then be deemed worthy of reproach? Because, at this point, it's hard to see what else they could possibly pull, other than to say we'll probably see it before February 5. What, pray-tell, could the GOP do that the Clintons are not doing?

By the way, for a concise summary of all the Rovian tactics on display in Castle Clinton of late, see (admittedly rabid Obama fan) Andrew Sullivan's most recent piece:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article3215287.ece

And, trust me, I didn't enter this election season determined not to vote for Clinton. I spent four years of my life working for them, including a year during l'affaire Lewinsky where it was my *job* to keep abreast of right-wing attacks and media bias against them.

But their election tactics now in 2008 have gone beyond the pale. They have shamed their legacy.

Your comment presumes the Republican slime machine will be somehow much more nefarious and effective than the Clintonian slime machine.

At this point, that would seem to be an open question.

By saying Sen. Clinton was able to "stay on message," do you mean she was able to keep brazenly lying? If so, I'd agree.

She kept up her distortions on Obama's Reagan remarks. She parroted her husband's distortions of Obama's Iraq war record. She tried to dishonestly conflate his "present" votes in the Illinois Senate as a vote in favor of sexual abuse. And she tried to make it seem as if Obama is on every side of every issue, when that's been the core aspect of her candidacy since Iowa. (She voted for the 2001 bankruptcy bill, but wanted it to fail; She was against the war, even though she voted for it.)

Her campaign has become thoroughly Rovian and reprehensible, and fundamentally unworthy of Democratic support.