The New York Times reports today, "Advisers to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton say they have concluded that Bill Clinton’s aggressive politicking against Senator Barack Obama is resonating with voters, and they intend to keep him on the campaign trail in a major role after the South Carolina primary."

Is it resonating? Polls offer a mixed picture.

In South Carolina, Obama leads in all polls. But Zogby shows John Edwards gaining at Obama's expense. Survey USA sees Edwards gaining at Clinton's expense. Mason-Dixon has Edwards' gaining, but with only minor declines for both Clinton and Obama.

Notably, both Zogby and Survey USA raise the outside possibility that Edwards might overtake Clinton for second place. If that actually happened, it would mean the blowback is significant and the negativity will be hard to sustain.

New national polls are also tricky to read, in part because they were taken primarily before the recent Carolina debate, where Obama began forcefully responding to the Clinton attacks that were previously unchallenged in Nevada.

The LA Times/Bloomberg poll shows a nine-point Clinton lead, but that's down from 24 points in early December. Clinton's support nudged downward 3 points.

The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows a 15-point lead for Clinton, but again, that's down from December, when it was a 22-point lead.

But that poll shows an unmistakable racial divide.

In December, Clinton held a 40-23 percent lead over Obama among whites, as well as support from a majority of African Americans. But now ... Clinton's lead among whites has jumped, 53-24 percent, while Obama now has a 63-23 percent lead over Clinton among African Americans.

If Obama wins South Carolina -- evening the score with Clinton (and widening his current edge in delegates) -- that in and of itself might cut into Clinton's lead with white Americans.

At least, it would present him with a fresh opportunity to win over white voters nationally, as he successfully did in Iowa and New Hampshire.

While Clinton may find it hard to regain her past support with African-Americans regardless of what happens in South Carolina.

Also hard to gauge at this point is the impact of having the Clintons -- in all of their glory -- dominating the campaign.

Does it spark more Clinton nostalgia or Clinton fatigue?

Does it argue that the duo, experienced in political hardball, are best suited to take on the Republican nominee?

Or does it argue that the sideshow that both the candidates and the media feed will turn off swing voters and weaken Dem chances?

I suggested in Iowa that Obama was allowing Clinton to make the race a referendum on her, and letting her control her own destiny.

Arguably, that was the case, and she lost anyway in Iowa after her attacks came across as ham-handed. When the attacks got better (or at least, louder) then they worked in Nevada.

But now that Obama is responding, can they still work?

Pretty much very Clinton attack can be turned back around on her.

For example, when Clinton ran a radio ad accusing Obama of championed Republican ideas, Obama put up an ad noting Clinton's past support of NAFTA and the Iraq war.

Looks like she saw she got checked, and promptly took her ad down.

So it's hard to see how she can replicate the success of Nevada with Obama fighting back.

But while Obama is playing better defense, he has yet to get on offense, and make the race about something other than a referendum on the Clintons.

With Clinton in the lead nationally (and the LAT poll indicating that Edwards supporters would not break one way or the other if he dropped out), it would seem that solely betting on Clinton fatigue is not a safe bet.

But on the other hand, if the Clintons make the wrong bet, and presume that more negativity is in their interest, Clinton fatigue may yet win out.