First we have Obama saying he is going to run a "differant" kind of campaign. Then he and Edwards smear Hillary until the sizable lead the Democrats had over McCain is gone. (great plan guys!)

Now we have Obama trying to reap the benefits of his long association with Rev. "god damn america" Wright but take none of the responsibility for the negatives.

There's a word for that, HYPOCRISY.

If Obama is not going to "disown" the good reverend then it's a package deal, Wright comes warts and all.

ps i just love the theme of this article....hillary is too mean LOL if obama can't stand up to this how in the world do you think he is going to survive the right wing smear machine?

Saying that "neither side is innocent of driving the discourse down" seems to be aimed at minimizing the Clinton's wonderfully lowbrow and sleazy campaign.

Which, if memory serves me right, is also a Republican tactic.

McPeak was universally hated and laughed at. His plan to deploy dissimilar aircraft types in the same logistics chain even though it was known they would not fight together or work together was completely scorned as expensive, dangerous and unworkable. If he didn't know HIS job, we shouldn't worry about him telling us what the President's job is.

Clearly she does not care about the Democrats winning the white house if the Democrat who wins it is not her. Politics is ugly, and the Obama team has certainly gotten into it, but I don't think you could accuse them of being willing ruin the party's chances in '08 should he lose. I'm beginning to wonder if Clinton believes that against Obama it would be better for McCain to win so that she could come back in 2012. If that is the case, and I'm willing to concede it might not be, then Hilary's campaign amounts to nothing more than a bitter, messianic, ego trip ("Why can't you see that only I can save us, you jackasses?").

it's all just politics until the Clinton's piss on Joe's life's work and forward articles from the organizations Joe spent years defending the Clintons against.

I mean, yeah, we all know that's why you were writing this article, but still, a disclosure of that fact might have been nice. Something like "Full disclosure, I did spend the better part of a decade trying to bury these rags, so that might be coloring my point of view slightly."

The thing is, Clinton's campaign tactics have been below-the-belt the whole time. Welcome to the party, Joe!

The idea that "both sides have crossed lines of decency and decorum" in anything approaching equal measure is laughable. Clinton has shown again and again that there is nothing she won't stoop to. It's not hard for someone without an ounce of personal integrity.

Weird how the McPeak-Spectator incident tipped the scales for you in the end there, Joe. None of the other ridiculousness emanating from the Clinton camp over the past few months seemed to have made much of a dent.

Well, the good news is, she's already lost.

What exactly has he done that was as sleazy as the Clinton?

Clinton camp:

Ferrarro - Obama only in this because he is black.

Bill - this is just a Jesse Jackson campaign.

Hill - to my knowledge he isn't a muslim.

Hill - I have 35 years of experience ducking sniper fire, but that Obama has no public policy experience after teaching law school for 10 years.

Bill - when Hillary and McCain are running, we will have two nominees who love this country, so the country won't be distracted by other [BLACK] issues.

Bill - McCain a praiseworthy moderate, almost on our side even, you should vote for him.

Carville - Richardson is a Judas for siding with Oabama, especially after Bill spent Superbowl Sunday at Richardson's house.

Hill - circulates right wing attack points that are entirely fact free.

Hill - 3AM ad.

Hill - NAFTA flap that her surrogates were responsible for.

Obama:

Powers - says that Clinton is a monster (opinion shared by 63% of the country judging by Clinton's 37% favorable rating).

Wright - America's chickens came home to roost on 9/11 (quoting ambassador ed peck, a well respected white man, and yes, Bin Laden was one of our chickens in the 80's Afghanistan Mujaheddin war against Russia, he was Tim Osman back then and we sold him MANPADS Man Portable Anti Aircraft Defense weapons).

So, how has Obama taken petty shots and turned this campaign into a gutter campaign?

Specifically, please fill out my list for me Joe Conason. Otherwise you are merely falsely equivocating like the rest of the media. Drawing equivalence in a fight is a way to look non partisan, but because you turn your head from the facts you show your true partisanship.

After what Hillary Clinton has been subjected to during this campaign, not from the right but rather the Democratic side, I can't believe that you would even bring up the term line. The unfair treatment of Senator Clinton crossed a line weeks ago and only the MSM has made any attempt at reeling in their predjudices. Progressive radio hosts, blog sites and Obama supporters have just continued their attacks on Hillary based on lies and distortions. The way everyone has sold out their ethics and proffesionalism to fight Obama's battles for him, he should be alot further ahead than he is. When this is over, I believe their will be alot of scrutiny of irrational behavior that is occurring and just being ignored for now.

...not to see the responses to this article as anything but knee-jerk reactions. Honestly. Is this supposed to be "grass roots response" to a column, because it is coming across as an orchestrated campaign.

I don't often comment, but I read Salon everyday for the progressive look at America. I am getting a little tired of the "exasperation" that some posters are projecting. I'm seeing a great number of comments that read like the "offended poster" has a (campaign distributed) notebook of "grievances" that whole™ world has inflicted upon their pet candidate that the poster needs to be the shiny knight for.

It gets old. Critical thinkers see through the smokescreen, and are turned off by the effect. I'd love to see Hillary's campaign stack her up against McCain. Not Obama. I cast my (Californian) primary vote based on whom I thought would be a) the best pick for the Democratic party and b) (a VERY important second point here:) whom I thought would be able to beat McCain. If candidates want to win primaries, they should outline strategies that will defeat the opposing parties, not the opposing Democrat.