It is really too bad that the venom has been so bad between the camps. I think what we are seeing is victim and identity politics at its worst, from both sides.

Personally, I began as an Edwards supporter because I thought his ability to actually come clean on his votes (the war, the bankruptcy bill) was very refreshing and I thought that he was the only person that was giving a voice to good people who have basically been screwed over by the Bush policies.

But now that Edwards I have begun to support Obama because I believe that, much more than Hillary, his election, hell is nomination would give this country an opportunity to get out of the red state / blue state paradigm that we have been trapped in ever since the GOP tried to impeach President Clinton (although, I really think it started with Willie Horton)

Yes, Hillary and Obama's positions are very close to each other but I think that, when looking at electability and the opportunity to show the world that we are better than what we have shown them for the past 8 years (and yes, images do matter), President Obama would erase all of the damage done "to our good name" in short order.

And finally, (almost even more than I dread another GOP presidency) I just dread the idea of a 49%/49% split between Hillary and McCain because I know that both of them would have no problem with sending the country straight to court and putting us further down the divisive road that Lee Atwater, Karl Rove put us on.

Wow, not only is this bad for her from a democratic base standpoint. But, Obama voted 'no' and she didn't even vote. Wow.

Can't say I am surprised but man, this just makes it seem again like Hillary feels like she can do or say whatever the hell she wants in Washington and 'the masses' won't see it.

wow.

As someone who lives in Chicago, and is an Obama supporter, and follows local politics, here's the Rezko story . . .

He's a crook. He's a crook who gave money and did favors for politicians in the expectation of access and that he would get a return on his investment!

And he gave to Obama's campaigns and Obama was tight with him. it doesn't appear that he gained anything from it but perhaps that is because they just caught him too early.

OH MY GOD!! ARE YOU SHOCKED YET???

Also, Obama supported Todd Stroger for Cook County Board President, a job long held by his father and a job which he referred to as his "Christmas present" on election night.

So, yes, Obama, as a Chicago politician has laid down with a few dogs (including Exelon) and might have some fleas. Hell you should see what hizzoner the mayor has gotten away with over the years.

And you can also bet that both the Chicago Tribune (a republican newspaper) and the Chicago Sun-Times (endorsed Obama but many columnists are Hillary supporters) are digging as frantically as they can for something.

So there you go. Now, um, about those Hillary tax returns?

Um, obama already released his returns and know one, um I mean, no one found anything.

There is an extreeeeeeeemely simple solution to this. Hillary just needs to release them. She said she is going to anyway after she wins the nomination.

I find that explanation bizarre. Does she think democrats will use them unfairly and republicans won't? Huh?

Of course Obama is pressing this as an issue. He'd be an idiot not to. He probably has no idea what's in those returns. Neither do I and neither do you. the fact that she won't release them is giving him a tactical advantage and he's making the most of it.

You know the kind of things republicans do. The kind of things Hillary said she would be good at and said Obama couldn't take.

Hillary has to go negative if she wants to win. Sure she could wait for an Obama slip up but it hasn't come yet and time is running out.

From a negative ad perspective, this one is pretty weak. The last line is really the only thing that makes it negative. I mean c'mon, they have had 18 debates with 2 more scheduled, I wouldn't exactly say that's ducking debates.

I guess she is gambling that this won't backfire and be seen as a desperate ploy to try and take a swipe at Obama and get free media at the same time.

Still, pretty weak.

Oh and by the way, any candidate would do this and if they didn't they wouldn't be trying so don't anyone get to huffy about Hillary doing it.

I support Obama and I am glad he is ahead (for now) but this is well within bounds of reasonable and does not prove that Hillary is any better or worse than any other candidate.

Can't really see this landing right? I mean c'mon! 18 Debates with 2 more scheduled?!!

In fact, if I were you, I would be mad that her campaign could manage to come up with something better than this. In fact if I had given money to her campaign I would be kind of pissed that she spent it on precious airtime for something like this.

Well put. And hey, who's better to give advice about political knife fighting than Nixon's old speech writer and plague of George I.

The problem I see with her going negative (and still it may be her only hope unless she's got pictures of Obama in a garter belt or something) is that it just re enforces the story line that he is a positive force for something beyond the negative partisan bickering that everyone is sick of and she is just more of the same.

If I were her, I would double down on opposition research and hope like hell something turns up.