You've no doubt already heard about this, but just in case you haven't, here is what Hillary Clinton's spokesman Howard Wolfson had to say about Barack Obama today: "I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president."
Hillary Clinton had no comment about her spokesman's remark.
Wolfson's comment is supposed to suggest, what, that Barack Obama's rather mild criticism of Hillary Clinton - certainly milder than Hillary Clinton's criticism of him - is analogous or in some sense similar to Special Prosecutor's Kenneth Starr's brutal investigation and hounding of Bill Clinton for the Monica Lewinsky escapade?
The only thing the two situations have in common - the current primary campaigns and the Lewinsky scandal - is that they both concern a Clinton.
Indeed, I said back when the Lewinsky scandal broke that what Bill Clinton did in his private activities was nobody's business, and he should not have been obligated to answer any questions about that - including, especially, from a vicious special prosecutor.
And Hillary Clinton's spokesman compares Obama and/or his campaign to that prosecutor now?
Perhaps it's not surprising. Wolfson was the same smear merchant who claimed Obama was "plagiarizing" when he used words in a speech that someone else had voluntarily given to him.
You know what? If anyone in the current campaign is like Kenneth Starr, it is Howard Wolfson. Hillary Clinton would do well to fire him.
3 comments:
Keep in mind that Wolfson was responding to a request that Clinton actually release her tax returns so that she could be properly vetted. But back in 2000, during Clinton's Senate race, this happened:
"In recent months, the team has been trying to focus public scrutiny on Lazio. Wolfson himself, along with a Democratic State Committee member dressed as Uncle Sam, showed up at a Lazio event in Harlem in August, taunting Lazio with the first lady's New York property tax returns and challenging him to release his returns. In any other campaign, it might have been the candidate who seized such a photo op; but with his boss invested in preserving her dignity, it occasionally falls to Wolfson"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEEDB1739F934A2575AC0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
So, how does the above in any way excuse Wolfson from smearing Obama with the absurd comparison to Kenneth Starr?
Or, am I missing some other point your're making?
I agree, Paul. I think Sam's being obtuse. I'll be very clear.
As Mo Dowd says,
What could be more shameless than suggesting to Democrats that John McCain would make a better commander in chief than Obama?
Here are the marching orders:
1) Get the Clinton tax returns. Checkout Andrew Sullivan:
The secrecy and paranoia endure. Releasing tax returns is routine for a presidential candidate. Barack Obama did it some time back. The Clintons still haven’t – and say they won’t for more than another month. Why? They have no explanation. They seem affronted by the question.
2) Hire back Samantha Power. Nice guys finish last, or buried as vice presidents.
Obama is the engineer. Hillary is the Caboose.
Post a Comment