- on half of this story. The Obama- Rezco connection is a non story. It's been done to death in IL, and there really is nothing new about it that Obama has to deal with. I assume the reason that he doesn't talk about it anymore is because in his mind they're just isn't anything more to say about it that he hasn't already said. If the Tribune does indeed have unanswered questions, they might be the only ones, and I would in fact be interested in seeing what they are.

But I do agree with Joe about not going too far on the taxes bit. I've said so before and I mean it. It's not so much that I think their won't be anything in them that is problematic for Clinton, but that if there is it would likely be so obscure or hidden as to be too obtuse for anyone to truly grasp.

There's plenty of things that the Obama campaign can talk about if they really want to start hitting back at her negative campaigning. I would rather see Obama start to talk about how Clinton has not authored a single major piece of legislation in seven years in the Senate. Or how it seems it was actually her campaign that told the Canadians that her NAFTA talk was just political posturing, not Obama's, and how strange it is that the story got switched around with such impeccable timing. And yes, I still believe her campaign altered Obama's image in the attack ad to make him look more black (actually chatted with a friend of mine who is a professional videographer about it, and he confirmed my thinking).

I really hope that Obama doesn't waste too much time on taxes. It's been said, it's out there, from now on mention it once and a while to keep it alive, but move on. If she stalls on it after April 15th, maybe then you go after it hard, but keep it on the back burner right now, and focus on other things.

P.S. -Don't leave AKA Smith. I'm not sure what the hell was wrong with you last night, but you're one of the more sane people around.

New Rule: Anyone who believes or claims to believe Clinton's big state argument against Obama should not be taken seriously.

There is no chance that Obama will not win California, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, or any of the other huge democrat stronghold states in November. In all those huge democratic bastions the democrats could put up the leader of NAMBLA and still manage at least 45%.

The only states Clinton has won that are not sure bets for any Democrat are Ohio, Texas, Tennessee, and Arkansas. Of those Hillary herself only has a chance in Ohio. Other than that, Obama will win every state she has won pretty easily.

Why is nobody else finding it telling that Clinton can't win any swing states?

Seems that a few people here are wanting to say that this is some kind of hit job on Spitzer, or that somebody was out to get him. I think you folks gotta calm down a bit.

I get the fact that Spitzer was something of a future star of the national Democratic party, but come on, there's nothing to suggest that anyone was specifically out to get him. Somebody at the bank noticed some irregularities, and contacted the authorities, as is their job to do. The IRS and FBI investigate, as is their job to do. There's nothing malicious to any of that I have heard so far. Just people doing their jobs.

He went after money people while NY AG, fine, and from what it sounds like he was kinda of a douche when he did it. So I'd say its pretty certain that he made quite a lot of influential enemies. But you can't just assume there's some kind of conspiracy behind him getting busted for doing something that is illegal on what appears to be many, many fronts. Democrats aren't always the victims of a hit job; sometimes a Democrat can just be stupifyingly corrupt.

It's about goddam time Obama started hitting back at the passive aggressive attacks of this nasty Clinton campaign. And unlike Clinton's half truths, outright lies, and race baiting, Obama's criticism are not only completely relevant, but totally accurate.

This is exactly the kind of attack that he needed to do. There is nothing wrong with an attack like this. When your opponent is corrupt or lying, you have to point it out. Clinton's exaggeration (at best it's an exaggeration) of her experience is a perfectly legitimate angle of criticism against Clinton. Now I hope he he moves on to point out just how nonexistent her record in the senate has been the last seven years.

I hope Obama's campaign has the wisdom to keep any attacks on Clinton within the realm of relevant issues, and maintains honesty. It's not like there's isn't a ton of ammo against this woman and her campaign that you'd need to stretch the truth or make things up.

And one other thing: Can everyone please stop trying to pretend that Clinton's vote for the war was anything other than a political calculation? Stop with this debate over judgement or principle. Her vote had nothing to do with either. It was all about not hurting her chances in her future presidential run, plain and simple. Right, wrong, wise, or unwise played absolutely nothing into her thinking. And it is really quite appropriate that such cowardly voting motives have come back to bite her in the ass big time.