While you usually write as a cogent and thoughtful advocate for your guy, this latest letter carries quite a lot of unintended ironies, seems to me. You accuse an opponent of using "...a classic Rovian tactic; keep repeating the falsehood until it [sic] enough people have heard it that it becomes truth."

But you proceed to do precisely that, in your list of alleged sins committed by "the Clintons." There's the Kazakhstan story, the taxes release story, the release of "papers from the library" story, and Lord help us, even the "conviction of perjury" story. And you lecture folks on "Rovian tactics!"

Re the Kazakhstan stuff; the original NYT article has been roundly criticized for its many inaccuracies, and the real story--sans its Rovian spins by you and others--is not much of a story at all. You're bright, and can be fair, so check it out. MMFA alone has pointed out all these errors.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801310011?f=s_search

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801310014?f=s_search

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802010002?f=s_search

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802010013?f=s_search

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802040005?f=s_search

As to the tax forms release story that keeps being told until it's believed...the rule is simple and clear, though none of you choose to mention it. The CANDIDATE NOMINATED by each party is to release his/her tax information. I guess it's nice that Obama chose to do it even though he's certainly not yet our candidate--and may never be--but to accuse Hillary Clinton of some kind of terrible corruption because she is playing by the rules is, well, Rovian. And use some of that logic you show often--A-she has believed all along that she will be the candidate. B--she knows that if she is, she will need to publish her tax information. C--there can be nothing serious to "hide" or she wouldn't be running at all, given A and B. Right?

Then there's the papers-from-the-libary meme. Again, the facts are so blurred by Rovian spins that it's difficult to disengage from the received wisdeom. But the truth is, the law is complex and difficult. Millons of pieces of paper are involved; researchers representing the government, not the Clintons have to peruse every one of them; Bush has made the task worse because after Clinton's researchers and the government researchers are finished, HIS ADMINISTRATION has the right (thanks to him) to keep anything private of OTHER PRESIDENTS that he wishes. All of this, and more details even nuttier, are hard to explain in a lengthy article, never mind when Russert shouts at you across a table for a yes or no answer.

And finally, I just can't believe you actually add "conviction of perjury." First, unless you're a total republican troll, you must be well aware of the entire Starr investigation and the lies and partisan probing of eight years duration that found nothing. Secondly, the very charge is a lie. Bill Clinton was never convicted of perjury, and certainly Hillary Clinton wasn't either. That is simply a ROVIAN lie, repeated so often that it becomes truth, in your words.

There are lots of reasons you prefer Obama to Clinton, and you make a lot of solid arguments elesewhere. But to accuse KateTEx or whoever it was of "Rovian tactics" while using them yourself in the very next paragraph is just not up to your own standards.

In fact, using your own term in your post, it's using "double standards."

Simply stated...

I like Hillary Clinton...her positions, her accomplishments, her plans for the country, her idealism and her intelligence.

I don't like Barack Obama...his positions, his dearth of solid accomplishments, his lack of concrete plans for the country ("Change!" doesn't count as "plans"), his naivete and his "slickness". (Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton could take lessons from this guy.)

You are free to vote for whomever you wish for whatever reason(s) you decide; I'll not be voting for Senator Obama for the reasons listed above. They're my opinions...and, that's my vote.

The Obamanista cultists will, most likely, now weigh in with their plaintive wails. Enjoy drinking the Kool-Aid, y'all...

Being able to memorize lots of statistics and position papers doesn't make a good candidate or a good president. It's about having the ability to make good decisions and excercize good judgement. When the Iraq vote came up in 2002, Hillary Clinton made a terrible decision and her judgement was just as awful. That vote disqualifies her permanently from being worthy of the Democratic nomination. All her propaganda about being more experienced and qualified than Obama is garbage and an insult to the Democrats. She doesn't deserve to be in the same arena with Obama, who is immensly more qualified to be president. it's time for her to go away.

"There are lots of reasons you prefer Obama to Clinton, and you make a lot of solid arguments elesewhere. But to accuse KateTEx or whoever it was of "Rovian tactics" while using them yourself in the very next paragraph is just not up to your own standards."

Actually, my very next paragraph was about how if we are condemning Obama for his relationship with Rezko, we have to condemn Clinton for their relationships and loyalties to business men with equally suspect histories, Mark Rich, being one example.

I believe that it is a political, not legal, mistake for Hillary to not release her tax returns immediately. Not releasing her tax returns perpetuates the myth that, just like in the '90's, the Clintons have something to hide. She is of course free to not release them until she becomes the nominee, but the political damage has been done; political damage that could have been mitigated by just releasing her taxes!

I'm not understanding your argument about why she shouldn't release her papers from the Clinton library; because it's hard and complicated? Because Bush might re-classify them? Again, I find it strange that a politician of Hillary's experience and wisdom would not see that the lack of transparency in the first Clinton presidency was a lightening rod, and that as a result, she should go above and beyond to be as transparent as possibly in her current campaign.

You, of course, are right, neither Clinton was convicted of perjury. I apologize for suggesting that they were. Yes, I was aware of the Starr's investigation and the impeachment trials. I also vividly remember watching Bill tell America that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky and then reading Monica and his testimony in the Washington Post. It was that testimony, for me, that proved him to be a liar.

My intention was not to lecture anyone. And again, I apologize for hitting a nerve. Truthfully, I am just really frustrated with Hillary supporters who have no problem blaming Obama for not being perfect, but who have happily forgiven Hillary for all of her many political and personal mistakes and missteps.

Nevertheless, the original point of my post still stands. Based on the Clintons' personal and professional histories, it seems disingenuous of her supporters to be wishing that reporters would dig deeper into the Rezko case. It seems strange to believe that Obama's relationship with Rezko will be his Achilles heel, when the Clintons have narrowly escaped financial and political scandals that were much, much worse and come out stronger.