I've seen a couple of links to the FactCheck.org piece on the Obama-Clinton fight. Neither come out looking good, and my tendency to be somewhat leery of both of them is reinforced. Over at John Cole's place, Michael D. also notes that Obama's "Wal-Mart" attack is kinda silly. The problem with this sort of negative campaigning is not that politicians should be above criticism, but that it's conducted without much regard for truth or reason. If I were running for political office, I would be going around saying "In recent years, it has become depressingly common for politicians to use personal attacks as a disingenuous tool for rising a few points in the polls. I promise you that when I go negative, I will mean it." Then, I'd insist on having every negative bit my campaign people dug up carefully double checked by them and triple checked personally by myself. When and only when I knew I had something legit, I'd be vicious.
In cheerier news, Richard Chapelle has a case for Obama that successfully manages to make his campaign look like it has something going for it beyond raw charisma. (Which is good, because after all you can't give a rousing speech to reality to get it to change its ways.)