http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Clinton_aide_compares_Obama_to_Ken_S tarr.html

Obama isn't nearly as smart as Ken Starr.

I am not sure what Wolfson achieves by going on the offense and lashing out. It does not do her party or her candidacy any favors. In his insult to Obama, he reminded Americans of all the millions of wasted tax dollars and effort that went into investigating the Clinton administration. One could certainly surmise that the money would have gone a long way toward paying for levees in Louisiana or bridges in Minnesota. I know that folks who live there might have liked that idea.

This is bigger than just Wolfson, the ever corrosive state of the Clinton camp, his temper or her war room. By proxy, the self-referential "Starr" answer is rather telling indeed. The question of secrecy and finance looms large in this campaign, and not just with the tax returns. Many thousands of requested documents from the Clinton library have yet to be released. By executive order, virtually every record from 1992-2000 could be reclassified when she arrives, and then resealed by Hillary for another dozen years in her own library when she leaves office.

Some documents have been promised to the press for months, including the itinerary and meetings of the first lady, but little has been made available. In addition, Senator Clinton, a supporter of the Patriot Act, has refused to address a single question about secrecy or the unitary executive. If we are to believe that she has nothing to hide, either now or in the past, we need to be presented with clear evidence and substantial facts.

By contrast, Barack Obama has already released his tax returns to the press and was pronounced squeaky clean. He is serious about restoring a balance of power and has been outspoken against a unitary executive. He has also pledged many times that the first job of his Attorney General will be to review every executive order during the past 8 years and rescind anything that is extraneous, illegal or unconstitutional. He has promised to restore habeas corpus and FISA. He also believes very strongly in transparency in government. In fact, he wrote a landmark bill, co-sponsored by Senator Coburn, a Republican, to create USAspending.gov

Reasonable debates, clear messages and unifying goals are all that these primary elections require to thin the field. I am disappointed that Hillary and her staff feel that they need to be on constant personal attack mode against the leading candidate of their own party. The negative strategy that looks terrible now against Obama, would no doubt backfire wildly against McCain, an elderly war hero. When this is all over, she is going to have to try to mend fences and rebuild bridges with a whole lot of people. Her staff, on the other hand, may have to change their names and move to American Samoa. :0)

Lousiana had the money for their levees, the demo leadership of the city and state invested it in casinos instead.

Almost a billion from the levee fund was invested that way.

Don't ever underestimate the Clinton's ability to go on the attack.

Finally, democrat supporters of Mr. Obama now see what conservatives have been dealing with for years now.

McCain-Obama in 2008

Herb

There is no way we will ever see a McCain / Obama ticket. That would seriously pollute what Obama is about. Not gonna happen.

I'm calling you on trying to paint the GOP in a better light here too.

We know the GOP looks bad. They've earned it with a lot of dirty politics. Really it's a shame to see Clinton stepping down to that level. That's why people don't like it.

Nothing about that in any way paints conservatives in some "see? we aren't so bad" kind of light.

Okay, then.

Can I interest you in a slightly used "McCain-Nader?"

I agree Missing.

This election is happening while spring training tryouts are going on all over America. When a rival slides into second, the difference between poor sportsmanship and fierce competition is where one puts their spikes. No surprise, that can also be the difference between making the team or being released outright and sent home.

So what about a McCain/Clinton ticket. That one is not out of the realm of possibility! Hillary probably would not mind being under McPain!

No.

Rather than have anything to do with Mrs. Clinton, I'd vote Nader in a second.

Herb

Oh, Herb, I thought you were smarter than that. I don't care for Clinton, but I would vote for Shrub again before I would vote for Nader, and you already know what I think of Shrub.

We all have our boundaries. Or as Clint Eastwood said in Dirty Harry: 'A man's got to know his limitations.'

I admire many things about Mr. Nader. While I don't agree with him on a fair amount of things, I admire his heart.

I don't even know if he's pro-life, but Ralph Nader would EASILY get my vote as I could never pull the lever for Mrs. Clinton. I'd go with Brezhnev instead...at least he was an honest commie, in the sense that Mr. Nixon knew who he dealing with when they sat across the table from each other during the SALT talks.

Herb

At least Nixon was no neocon. He would be considered a conservative Democrat today, after improving ties with China and creating the Department of Education and trying to end the war in Vietnam. If he had not been so paranoid about the Democrats, he would have gone down in history as a pretty decent president overall.

That's a very cogent post, Radioblogman.

You're right about him being a conservative Democrat today, especially with his starting the EPA and taking us off the gold standard.

Herb