A reader writes:
I don’t know if you get any counter-emails, but count me as someone who hasn’t seen much substance in any of the recent charges against candidate Clinton or spouse Clinton. They all fall into one of two categories: tendentious-to-invented, and sour grapes. Clinton obviously knows how to run an American political campaign, whereas Obama doesn’t…which is hardly surprising, since he’s never had to, above the state senate level. There’s no shame in that, and it can certainly be spun as a point of moral superiority, but in the meantime he’s going to lose some primaries and caucuses.
Obama, in the end, is shaping up to be a fantastic candidate for people interested in “politics” in an abstract sense, whereas Clinton is scoring on either side of that concept: the daily grind of winning elections, and the daily grind (post-election) of trying to get good outcomes for people via the political system. The middle is a super-noble place to be, but in an Olympian sense that requires a special and sustained set of circumstances to get you elected. Clinton is the ideal foil for Obama (it’s hard to imagine he would have run against any other front-runner), and if he can’t kick her posterior up and down the length and breadth of the country, he can’t kick anyone.
The Dish 