As a Democrat and ardent supporter of Bill Clinton, I was disgusted by the Republican hatchet job (abetted by the Wall Street Journal and Jeff Gerth at the Times) to manufacture a scandal with Whitewater in the early days of the Clinton Administration.

It was an era long before blogs, by I personally expelled plenty of hot air defending him to friends and colleagues.

But while Whitewater was ultimately shown to be mostly political theater orchestrated by the Republicans with help from sloppy reporting (see Gene Lyon’s detailed deconstruction — favorable to the Clintons — here), those pushing the attacks and line of inquiry could claim there was a potential of real wrongdoing.

The Clintons’ Whitewater partner — Jim McDougal — owned a savings & loan in Arkansas that was regulated by Bill Clinton’s state government. McDougal raised money for then Governor Clinton — just before he got approval from a state regulator to raise money for his failing bank. His bank was represented by none other than Hillary Clinton before the state regulator.

It was possible McDougal could have gotten approval from the state regulator as some form of quid pro quo for raising money for Clinton. Nothing was proved of course, but it was theoretically possible.

In the Rezko case, something like this isn’t even theoretically possible.  As a U.S. Senator, Obama wielded no regulatory power over anything involving Rezko or his business — and is not alleged or suggested by anyone. It’s pure political theater, done solely for the reason to make Senator Obama look dodgy, to put him on the defensive before tomorrow’s primary.

So of all the things done in this campaign to date, I find the Clinton campaign’s relentless pushing of the Rezko issue particularly disgusting.  They, of all people, should know better.  They were slimed by the Republican attack machine with Whitewater. So it’s pathetic and sad that she’s reprised the same techniques and applied them to a fellow Democrat, especially given where there isn’t the same potential for of wrongdoing as there was with Whitewater.

Last week Senator Clinton chided: "Shame on you Senator Obama." This definitively proves to me she has no shame, and she doesn’t deserve the vote of any self-respecting Democrat.

Last week, Hillary Clinton made a big deal in her debate with Barack Obama about his "denunciation" of Louis Farrakhan. Didn’t go far enough for her, she wanted him to "reject" Farrakhan as well.

Yet, there is a far more insidious set of behaviors engaged in by her own supporters and volunteers. Read this, from the Chicago Tribune "Swamp" blog:

A lawyer in a predominantly Democratic suburb of Cleveland relates this tale to The Swamp on the day before the all-important Ohio primary:

So last night around dinner time, the phone rings. It’s the Hillary campaign–official number, per the caller ID. The woman on the other end asks me if Hillary can count on my support Tuesday. I say I have not decided.

She asks what would help me decide. I say, “Well . . . maybe she can make Bill her vice president.” She does not know how to take me, of course, but has to assume I am serious. “I don’t think she can do that.” “Bill will have a significant role in major decisions, though, won’t he?” I ask. “Oh, certainly he will be very involved. Do you like Bill?” “Very much.” I reply.

She then launches into a two-minute spiel on all the very specific initiatives and proposals Hillary has put forth on health care, the war in Iraq, etc., etc. At the end of her spiel, she says, “And we haven’t heard anything that specific from Osama bin Laden.”

I say, “You did not just say that.” She replies, “I’m sorry . . . just a slip of the tongue.” She then thanks me for my time and encourages me to vote for Hillary on Tuesday.

Isolated comment, from a misguided supporter? Spend some time reading the lovely comments over at Hillaryis44.com if you doubt it.

And then we have the wiggle room wink-and-a-nod in last night’s "60 Minutes."

“You don’t believe that Senator Obama’s a Muslim?” Kroft asked Sen. Clinton.

“Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that.
I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn’t any
reason to doubt that,” she replied.

“You said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not…a Muslim. You don’t believe that he’s…,” Kroft said.

“No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” she said.

Perhaps innocuous, but go back and read the first part of this blog post, please.

Finally, I pass on this anecdote from doing a weekend of phone banking for Senator Obama to the State of Texas. By far, most of the people I spoke with were gracious, many extremely supportive of and enthusiastic about Senator Obama. But I spoke with two older women who were extremely hostile, one of whom told me:

"I don’t want nothin’ to do with that Osama."

The question is: will Hillary reject and denounce those who are among her supporters who are engaging in these kinds of scurrilous, race and religion-baiting attacks?