Opus: "and also- thanks for illustrating my point. I mean if that list is all you can come up with, clearly the "kitchen sink" metaphor is a bit off."

Actually I thought R-BL's list was pretty good! But I have a few to add (I will also include RBL's list):

Anatomy of a Kitchen Sink:

• "Campaign Clinton has said that the Democratic frontrunner isn't as qualified to be president as the GOP nominee (but he can be her VP bitch)."

• "Campaign Clinton has suggested that your children my die in their beds from some foreign attack if Obama is at the helm of our military."

• "Campaign Clinton had denigrated the states in which she lost ("oh they're small and red anyhow," "they're 'undemocratic' caucuses," "they're mostly black," "they're not blue collar enough")."

• "Campaign Clinton has called Obama "Ken Starr" because he called for the release of his opponent's tax records -- just as Clinton did in 2000."

• "Campaign Clinton enlisted the dead Ann Richards in campaign ads, against the objections of Richards' sons."

• Campaign Clinton pounces on three sentences from a speech, which were offered to Obama by a colleague, and uses it to press a gotcha-style "plagiarism" charge, trying to score points off of a lame debate quip (one that instead draws boos and that Clinton hasn't repeated since).

• Campaign Clinton ends the same debate with a warm "I'm honored to be here with Obama" moment, then just 2 days later Clinton mocks Obama with a sarcastic mocking of his speeches:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfaZRAdyEHM

• On the same weekend as the above, Campaign Clinton rants incessantly for nearly 5 minutes about an Obama mailer, concluding with a loud, "Shame on you!" line. Video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_X-RoRghAY

• The Monday after the two instances above, the Drudge Report posts a years-old photo of Obama in Somali garb (the type that creates an uneasy Muslim association) and claims that it was circulated by Clinton staffers. The Clinton campaign does next to nothing to repudicate Drudge's claim, only making vague denials.

• During the following week's debate, Clinton attempts to win a point against Obama by claiming that his statement of "denouncing" the views of Louis Farrakhan isn't as good as "rejecting" them. (To which Obama replies, fine, he will both denounce and reject.)

• Campaign Clinton releases a long memo directing reporters to ask a series of misleading questions about Obama's involvement with Rezko -- on the day the trial starts, which is also the day before the Ohio/Texas/etc. primaries. Reporters respond in kind, in spite of Obama not being implicated in any wrongdoing. (See Media Matters for America for additional information about this subject.)

• Clinton's campaign aggressively pursues a non-story about the Obama campaign's conversations with some in the Canadian government, coining the phrase "NAFTA-gate" to suggest something unethical occurred. It later turns out Clinton's campaign did the same sorts of things Obama's campaign did (and yet, Clinton is still trying to win points off of this...).

Those are a few of the "kitchen sink" attacks. Some are worse than others. Prior to Hillary Clinton's 11 losses in a row, her campaign was much more above-board, spending most of its time trying to tout Clinton's accomplishments and experience.

is the "charge" here simply that someone "tipped off" drudge?

I agree, wouldn't a clinton campaign staff have done anonymously?

Was there no mass e-mailing to Texans?

A mass e-mailing should be traceable. Drudge, I understand, solicits anonymous "tip" (as do lots of sites). Is he "rat-fucking" a stupid Clinton staffer who though he/she could share a LINK anonymously.

If this is ONLY about tipping Druge to the existence of the photo, gosh, I'm sorry, but then I don't know what to think about the Obama campaign ...

(It doesn't make this a "good thing to have done" but it hardly constitutes a "dirty trick" -- while unearthing an ancient photograph in the public domain and circulating it might be.)

Actually, even if you know the sender, you can't really know their motive... such is existence, I guess.

Compare this to the Justice Department ... oh my my.

1. nothing negative, qualitative assumption on her part (we the voters are supposed to be making a decision after all)

2. its a mild attack ad. perhaps you've forgotten that real attach ads mention names and distort candidates records

3. "they're mostly black" ????? seriously- did you type that?

4. i'll def. give you that one.

5. using dead people regardless of their children's OK is poor taste- rather like confusing Caroline with an oracle of JFK

6. lame yes, gotcha on a minor issue is par for the course

7. you do realize this is a campaign right?

8. Both NAFTA quotes (obama's and clinton's) were used out of context, thats a fact we should all be able to agree on

9. So taking time to investigate the claim was wrong? Or they should have rolled out a firm denial without basis?

10. Reject implies a personal distaste; denounce implies using your position in opposition to those beliefs. (i agree minor)

11. He needs to stand up and deal with Rezko or its going to haunt the campaign. I know talking about it makes it a story, but saying it was discussed back before i was a national figure isn't going to make it go away.

12. "It later turns out Clinton's campaign did the same sorts of things Obama's campaign did" that was a rumor last i heard? there is documentation of Obama's though.

When one is trying to win an election, it doesn't hurt to start with a rock-solid 49% base...

As to the general tone of this letters section: This is so much "damned if you do, damned if you don't". True, it is a fine line to walk when you are serious about "Changing the tone". Attack too often or too fiercely and you are a hypocrite. Attack too infrequently or ignore specific charges and you are labeled "soft".

This is the line Obama has to skirt, and I think he does a pretty good job of it. It's important to remember the political climate we're in right now. The GOP has demonized the left so badly for the last 8 years that there are conservatives who believe that the Democrats, if elected, will just hand the country over to "the terrorists". It defies any logical examination but there it is.

That's why the Obama campaign is so important. A president Hillary Clinton will have to so demonize, so vilify the opposition in order to win over her hard 49% negative, she won't be able to govern effectively. I could be wrong, but it can be hard to get sweeping Healthcare initiatives passed when you've spent 6 months portraying the opposition and crazy, stupid, hypocritical or bloodthirsty (even if its true, in some cases). You'd think Clinton would know better seeing how Hillarycare worked out last time...