A Tale of Two Responses to Uncouth Comments: Obama and Clinton

Americans were treated to a very constructive comparison between the campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the past two days, and perhaps some insight into differences in the character of the candidates.

Obama aide Samantha Power called Hillary Clinton a "monster" in an interview with The Scotsman - she apologized to Clinton, Obama, and resigned.

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson likened Barack Obama to special prosecutor Kenneth Starr (who obsessively hounded the Clintons in the 1990s), saying "I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president" - not only has he not apologized, but Hillary Clinton first said she had no comment, and later added at a press conference in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, "Well, I think that is a true statement."

A classic piece of Clintonian word splicing - I suppose the statement could be interpreted as not saying Obama was like Starr and unfit to be President, but simply saying anyone who was like Starr did not deserve to be President - but it's surely not an apology or in any sense whatsoever disapproving of Wolfson's statement.

If ever America needed an example of new versus old politics, of political decency versus win at any cost, of grace in politics versus throw everything you can at your opponent whether true, false, or nonsensical, I think the difference between the Obama and Clinton campaigns in their responses to Power and Wolfson amply provides it.

Hillary Spokesman Howard Wolfson is the One Like Kenneth Starr - not Barack Obama

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.