i think clinton has exercised an enormous amount of restraint in this election; indeed, i think she's a much better person than i am for it.  obama, by contrast, has exercised little to none--citing and spreading false, divisive, misleading, and outright deceptive things about her at every opportunity in an attempt to besmear and denigrate her character.  and she hasn't returned the favor, bless her heart.

The other candidate is running on experience -- 35 years of pubic service -- caring about, learning about (in unusual depth and breadth), dealing with and achieving often incremental, but solid, success on important policy issues. And, many years spent in the pressure cooker of political life enduring and surviving the brutal, vicious, amoral political assaults that are part and parcel of any effort to bring real political change. (Note to Obama supporters; real change does not happen without resistance, most often, brutal resistance. Go for "unity" and all you'll get is lip service, not change.  Going truly for "change" means having to tolerate being hated and well prepared for attacks. After change is accomplished you may get unity -- because the opposition will now find it useful to deal) Clinton concedes she is imperfect and has "baggage" -- but believes she is the best prepared for both the general election campaign and the presidency. She has critically questioned her opponents' policy and political experience and questioned his political judgement and performance. Her campaign  been hard hitting and sharply critical and challenging of her opponents campaign themes and statements and has challenged him to be more explicit and substantive -- but has never suggested that her opponent's emotional rhetoric was meant to "bamboozle" and "hoodwink." voters  Her campaign has not attacked his personality, his personal character, or gone anywhere near his family (the Obama campaign has planted people in the audience to embarrass Chelsea Clinton with questions about her father's infidelities, etc.)

So, neither is saint or devil, both are sharp elbowed pols. But here is the difference as I see it; one campaign, in addition to the candidate's unique biography, consistently relies on demagoguery; demonizing the other in very personal and dishonest ways, courting voter anger, distrust and paranoia, positioning his opponent not as an opponent but as an enemy of the good while positioning himself as the pure savior, above the fray and outside the worldly corruption of Washington. The other campaign is running on the candidate's policies, record, experience, knowledge of the voters and their needs, personal grit and her belief that, as flawed as it, and she, may be, hers is a more experienced and substantial record than her opponent's.

In politicians I prefer the second approach to the first -- because it straight-forwardly presents an argument I can accept or reject in whole or in part. It makes assertions that can either be proved or disproved.