I don’t really see what you are on about. There are many reasons why all kinds of fractions would want to see the Obama camp get tough with Clinton. First of all, his campaign this far has been in the spirit of those vintage GWB lines of ‘we need a uniter, not a divider’, and this makes any attack smacking ever so little of mudslinging perilous to him (but yum-yum for the punditocracy, naturally), especially since the Iowa voters supposedly frown upon such behaviour. Secondly, the Republicans welcome any internecine rumpus in the Democratic party, for obvious reasons. Thirdly, amongst the Democrat grass roots, many are longing for someone beside Edwards really to start questioning Clinton’s track-record on everything from her mealy-mouthed stance(s) on Iraq (past and present) to her all too cozy relationship with big business — to name just two of the question marks surrounding her. (Incidentally, the other candidates have only addressed the heredity question you mention in very veiled terms so far, so that’s another issue bound to get some venting sometime soon. Another issue is her still abysmal standing with right-leaning and centrist voters [much worse than Obama’s].) Finally, if Obama keeps lagging in the polls, he has little choice but to have a go at the top dog. If he doesn’t reach that conclusion himself, his supporters will force him to.