Nobody has yet explained why Duckworth has found herself in such a cash crunch, but today’s Tribune endorsement ought to help raise a few bucks.

Duckworth is not nearly as polished a campaigner as her opponent, Republican state Sen. Peter Roskam, who has spent 16 years in the General Assembly. There is something refreshing about that.

Roskam likes to call Duckworth a “liberal,” but he’s been known to use the term loosely. He labeled Republican U.S. Rep. Judy Biggert a “liberal” when he ran against her in 1998. (Biggert, then a state representative, beat him.)

Roskam rarely breaks from the party line, but one case in which he did still nags. In 1995 Roskam and his partner in a personal-injury law firm, former state Rep. Al Salvi, set up a special political committee and solicited more than $70,000 in donations from trial lawyers–half of it coming within 48 hours of a crucial vote on a Republican-sponsored tort reform bill. Roskam and Salvi told lawyers they asked for contributions that they wouldn’t support tort reform.

In the end, Roskam gave in to pressure from Republican leaders and voted for the reform bill–and Salvi and Roskam gave back much of the money they had solicited from the lawyers.

That’s an interesting concept for Springfield–a money-back guarantee on campaign cash solicited for a vote. But the incident smacked of the kind of special-interest politics that needs to be rousted from Washington.

The Sun-Times has more on the cash crunch and her new TV ad.

Just days after filing a report showing her Democratic congressional campaign short of funds, Duckworth plans to begin airing television commercials today featuring U.S. Sen. Barack Obama singing her praises and dubbing her Republican opponent’s ad less than totally honest.

In addition, the campaign will send out a separate version of the commercial in an e-mail to potential donors, volunteers and bloggers with a fund-raising appeal from the Democratic senator tacked on at the end. […]

She reported just $206,381 in her campaign fund on Sept. 30, while Roskam had $1,500,950. […]

The latest Duckworth spot features Obama criticizing Roskam for airing “misleading” television ads that equate Duckworth’s position on illegal immigration with providing amnesty and Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants.

“Tammy and I both support [GOP U.S. Sen.] John McCain’s plan, which does not include amnesty or benefits for illegal immigrants,” Obama says in the ad.

The national Dems began running their TV ad yesterday that blasts Roskam as a book banner.

The Tuesday ad against Roskam features a woman billed as “Mary Kay Doyle, retired teacher,” chastising Roskam for favoring book bans.

“He supported banning classic books, even a book with writings by Martin Luther King, Laura Ingalls Wilder and Dr. Seuss. I just think Peter Roskam is out of step with people here,” the woman said.

The assertion is a reference to three different state legislative plans Sen. Roskam supported in Springfield: one to ban a textbook series from Arlington Heights schools, another to ban books that talk about suicide and a third to allow local juries to determine whether a book is obscene.

Roskam spokesman Jason Roe called the ad a “phony attack,” saying Roskam “was trying to allow parents a voice in knowing that their children don’t get access to ‘suicide-for-dummies’ and pornography.”

*** UPDATE *** Here’s the Obama ad:

And here’s the DCCC ad attacking Roskam.