Anonymous wrote:

" Ethics is always in the eye of the beholder. Thats why its always better to focus on the issues and not buy into the character counts charade."

------------------------------------------------------

Why can't we have both? I like Obama on the issues and I admire his character. I am about half-way through his first book, Dreams from my Father. It's an incredibly honest and insightful examination of his own person, his strengths and as well as his weaknesses. His life seems to be an extension of this self-examination. I often think that if Bill Clinton were willing to do the same, he would have been a brilliant leader instead of just a brilliant politician. He was undone by lack of character, and it really hurt his (and our) causes.

I don't doubt that Clinton may do better in Ohio and Texas. but the question is, IF things keep going the way they are (and theres no guarantee of that admittedly), then Texas and Ohio aren't going to matter. Let's look at the numbers.

Post Feb. 5th States (Louisiana to Wisconsin) is 447 pledged delegates.

Ohio and Texas is 334 delegates.

If Obama continues to win the way he is, and even if he does as poorly in Texas and Ohio as he did in, say, California at 42%, theres not a very good chance Clinton will make up her string of losses.

This is not to say she can't do it. Certainly if she turns it around on Tuesday, and further on this month, she could pull Obama to a draw in Feb and then win in March. But that's not looking very likely.

I'm sure your are aware of the criticism of Obama's book noted by the Washington Post's Richard Cohen and the Chicago papers. Some of the events in the book are not quite accurate.

"It is beyond me how the formerly beloved Clintons can be vilified by Democrats with RW talking points."

During the eight years of Bill, for every 1 good thing he did, there was at least 1 bad thing, and sometimes more. Many here have extensively listed the bad and the good, so I won't bother.

Now, Bill-Hill want a do-over. Hillary EXPLICITELY reminds people of the Clinton years. It's HER CHOICE. So, we are here to indicate what was GOOD about Clinton (either) and what was bad. We are weighing the soul of Clinton, and he/she has been found wanting.

That's the point.

re: people voting for Obama -

What tide is turning? Americans demonstrate every day in ways large and small their seemingly endless affinity for mediocrity dressed up like something special. Every time I hear someone speak of Obama as a "poet" or talk about his "charisma" I wonder, who ARE these people, still so easily led and still so deaf, dumb and blind even after one might hope they'd have learned one hell of a lesson six and a half years ago about seeing and hearing what they *want* to see and what they *hope* is true rather than what's actually there. What's actually "there" in Obama's case? Not much.

A couple of people actually read what I wrote. That's a comfort. Let me respond to a couple of points.

I certainly did not say that all the attacks were the result of Bill's personal behavior. That's just the only one that was justified. We had a cottage industry in Arkansas of well funded people trying to dig up any kind of dirt they could on the Clintons.

When they were getting started in Arkansas, well connected people did try to get one or more Clintons into deals where they could make a little money. They did not have any, and Bill's salary when he was first elected governor was, I think, $7,500 (and that's not a typo). McDougall got them into the Whitewater deal and they lost money. I used to know the name of the guy that got Hillary into futures trading. She made a little money in that and got out before the market went south. Eventually, she supported the family as a successful corporate lawyer.

(I don't want to cloud the issues, but note: GWB's payoff from the Texas Rangers really was dirty, and he did not pay his taxes.)

If you go back and look at the billing records story, you will see that once found they substantially confirmed Hillary's account of the work she did for McDougall's S&L--i.e. not much.

State regulators forced McDougall out of control of his S&L because he was crazy, but they did not close it down because they lacked the authority to do so.

I don't have much trouble believing that people lose stuff when they move. I'm still looking for a box of kitchen gadgets that disappeared in a move 30 years ago.

The other "scandals" are less obviously phony, but my point is that if there had been something illegal done, one or more Clintons would have been in jail. I know a few details about some of the charges, and I am convinced that all or nearly all of it was simply stuff that enemies made up or blew way out of proportion. The Rich pardon was unfortunate and almost certainly a mistake, but I do not believe the sinister innuendo.

I worked on and off for the Arkansas State Police for years on personnel stuff. I had two directors tell me spontaneously that Bill Clinton had never asked them to do anything shady. In Arkansas, that is an accomplishment, and a standard not upheld by at least one of Bill's successors. I think both Clintons were and are as about as honest as any two public servants we could ask for. The fact that so many people are willing to believe otherwise is the triumph of propaganda that I wrote about, and that's why I think this rises to the level of tragedy.

I think I'm forgetting a point or two, but I forgot to take notes on my critics' comments. Let me add, that I'd be very happy with a President Obama, but the Clintons are more sinned against than sinning.