Two more:

1. When John McCain attacked Obama for supposedly going back on his "pledge" to take public funding in the general election if his Republican counterpart did so, Hillary joined in, saying that it cast Obama's credibility in doubt. Hillary's corroboration of the McCain attack is a great example of her putting her own interests in front of that of the party's. In order to make a not-very-effective shot at Obama's character, she validates a McCain talking point which is antithetical to the interests of the Democratic Party if Obama is the nominee. In this election year, we can expect to raise substantially more money than the Republicans, and for the Clintons to try to tie Obama's hands behind his back in general election financing is counterproductive.

2. The War Room reported last week a poll that said that 20% of Clinton supporters said they would vote for McCain if Obama was the nominee; 10% of Obama supporters said they were do the same if the opposite was true. Team Clinton cited this poll in making an argument for their own electability (i.e., they used the fact that more of their supporters would betray the party if Clinton didn't get the nomination to argue that she was more electable).

I think Clinton is taking the approach that "it's me or it's no one." In other words, if she isn't the nominee, she'll be damned if Obama gets elected in her stead.

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

As I made clear, I was quoting Reality-Based Liberal's list, which is also why that was in quotes and italics.

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

I think the Clinton campaign could have handled it much better. It sounds like it WAS being circulated by staffers. Obama shouldn't make too much of it -- it's over.

opus: "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."

Clinton sending out a long list of misleading questions for journalists to ask is still part of the laundry list of attack methods.

Anyway, thanks for replying. I had forgotten one other one: Clinton's whole "McCain has a lifetime experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Obama has a speech from 2002" line. That was pretty rude considering it spoon-feeds McCain a nice little Clinton-endorsement quote to use later on.

I would also add to this list

•The constant "moving of the goalposts" regarding the threshold of victory - the moving has been so bad recently that Clinton actually suggested that pledged delegates don't necessarily have to vote for whom they've been assigned (technically true, but since the candidates pick who these delegates will be, they're pretty sedentary).

@Opus: That's what the Bill Clinton jab "Well, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina.." was all about. The talking point has always been: "Well of course he won -insert state here- primary - the electorate was -insert number here-% African American.

Its the political equivalent of saying "Well, of course Hillary won California, the electorate is 51% female". Its the worst kind of lumping and suggests that without a certain demographic (who are marginalized in the process), X candidate would be sunk..

Yes, I'm especially troubled by the fact that the Clinton campaign has made common cause with the McCain campaign in attacking Obama.

You know the old saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Wow, imagine what might have happened if the Clintons had fought as savagely against the Bush administration over the past seven years as they have against Obama over the past six months... The Democrats might have been a live, real opposition party...

Oh, I forgot ... George W. Bush never got in the way of their achieving their ambitions as Obama has. Of course!

Trying to go a tit for tat as to whose campaign is "more negative" is just silly. For a host of reasons, number one being that nobody has all the stuff the campaign puts out there. You don't have all their mailings in every area, you don't have all their ads in every area, you don't have all their spokespeople's comments. And you're not poring through transcripts of all their appearances. So you're working from ignorance. It's just a silly exercise.

Both campaigns have gone after the other. It is neither shocking nor unethical. Both campaigns have had some staffers say and do stupid things. Again, neither shocking nor unethical (since they were staffers, not the candidates themselves). Both campaigns have had supporters say and do stupid things--but they're all adults and weren't scripted by the candidates when they did. And both campaigns have probably crossed the line a very few times--one's definition of that being warped by one's preference. Personally, I think Hillary crossed the line with doing McCain's job for him on the experience issue (not that McCain isn't and wouldn't have done it--but that's his job) and Obama crossed the line on the MLK issue. And one or two other times. But trying to pull up every attack and number/rate them is an exercise in futility and silliness. They're both doing it and roughly equally.

sorry- my bad- i should have caught the italics.

i saw someone adding the campaign finance issue but am too tired to deal with something that actually really disappoints me. so short sighted on both sides of the aisle to think money wins elections and not ideas, or that it is acceptable to continue in a cycle where money does determine them.

I was obviously paraphrasing throughout, but accurately. Here is what Clinton said after LA:

"You had a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand."

billcap: "Trying to go a tit for tat as to whose campaign is "more negative" is just silly."

I think to most observers' eyes, Clinton has gone more prominently negative than Obama. It is hard to deny that Clinton was motivated to do so, since she had 11 straight losses. It's also well documented (see the New York Times' article right around the time of the "Shame on you!" speech) that Clinton's campaign made a deliberate internal decision to go negative. Look also at the way Clinton and Obama conducted themselves during the debates around that time, compared to the debates previously (with Edwards present). Remember Obama making a joke about Bill Clinton's dancing ability, etc.? Hillary Clinton certainly wasn't going after Obama then. Contrast that with the "Change you can Xerox" approach Hillary used later on.

Nobody is saying Hillary Clinton doesn't have the right to go negative. It's her campaign. I don't particularly care for some of the tactics she's felt free to use. I do think she's gone much farther into questionable negative territory than Obama has. I think the growing list of her campaign's misdeeds supports that, but you are welcome to compile your own such list for Obama's campaign and present it to all of us.