I don't agree with your analysis. There is a qualitative difference between the politics of personal destruction that Hillary Clinton is engaging in and the criticisms that were leveled against her by opponents.

As examples, I have no problem with her arguinng that her health plan covers more Americans than his would. Whether it's true or not, she believes it and that's legitimate.

I do have a problem with her "Shame on you Barack Obama" indignance over his flyers--particularly given that her own campaign started sending far more misleading flyers as early as Iowa and the Obama campaign never really complained.

I don't have a problem with her believing that her is the better candidate to make change happen because she's been around Washington longer. I do have a problem with her insinuating (e.g., as she did on the Daily Show) that if he were president, he wouldn't even show up to answer the "red phone."

The only thing he has said that can be interpreted as a "personal attack" is to cite the poll numbers that indicate that she starts the race with negatives at 49%. That was not a figure he made up and when he cited it, he was careful to note that it wasn't entirely her fault.

It's true he has called her "more of the same." Like her criticism of his healthcare plan, it's a legitimate distinction as to his perception of their approaches to politics. She herself calls herself a fighter; he has been described as a conciliator. I think it's clear that we've lacked in conciliators in our government in the last 7 years (think of Dubya saying stuff like "I'll listen to any democrat who is on board with my ideas."

But honestly what is the "bashing" to which you are referring?