What are Obama's supporters supposed to do?  The Clinton's and their supporters have repeatedly made statements that were probably not necessary and are at LEAST borderline offensive.

If Obama doesn't do anything, Dems will think the guy is not a fighter and not vote for him.  If he responds, he's playing the race card.

A brilliant Clinton strategy.

Try, just try, just for once, to spell his name right.

DICK DURBIN.  Note the I.

And he's not a concern troll, you dweebless twit, he's a senator, and he's the assistant majority leader.  If Hillary is good, someday she too might become the Assistant Majority Leader.

You people are so involved in spewing out the hit pieces that little details just go by the boards.  So many many errors, lies, inuendos, misstatements, incorrect components, that little of any value can be trusted.

Well, Durbin wasn't completely silent in response to Obama's criticism regarding Kyl-Lieberman. Although Durbin didn't exactly express any kind of moral disappointment in Obama (i.e., he wasn't "really troubled"), he did basically say Obama was dead wrong concerning the practical significance of that legislation.

Here's the excerpt from an interview with Durbin:

MR. HUNT: Your presidential candidate and Illinois colleague, Barack Obama, this week criticized Hillary Clinton's vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. He said it was the same sort of reckless and misguided vote as her support for the Iraqi war five years ago. Do you agree with Senator Obama?
SEN. DURBIN: No, I don't. And it's rare that Barack and I disagree on an issue of this magnitude. And I understand the presidential campaign, but I read that Kyl-Lieberman resolution very carefully and announced I wouldn't vote for it unless they changed it dramatically. They agreed to remove two offensive paragraphs that I thought went way too far. This sense of the Senate, I don't believe gives any authority to the president of the United States to invade Iran or any other country. I think that was very clear during the course of the debate. I have the same concerns that Barack Obama does about this administration and what they might do with the power that they have. But I don't think this resolution gives them a green light to do anything.

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics /2007/10/durbin_disagrees_with_obama_on. html

Again, it's not quite the same kind of remark as his comment relating to Clinton, however it is more than complete silence.

Durbin is correct on the substance, regarding the history of the war resolution and Bill Clinton's role and all that.

I think you even agree that he's correct on the substance.

I can agree with you that he's acting as an advocate for Obama, and not as a disinterested observer who's just chiming in, but I really don't see why it matters so long as what he says is correct.