Ken Starr Tactics

Barack Obama's campaign wants Bill and Hillary Clinton to release their tax returns. The Clinton campaign responds by denouncing "Ken Starr" tactics. But this is the point, isn't it? Clinton's people want to say we need a "vetted" candidate, so we need a vetted candidate. It's not as if the Republicans have forgotten Ken Starr tactics, nor is it as if examining potential financial conflicts of interest is some kind of outlandish new development in dirty politics. I personally am a bit less interested in their tax returns than in seeing some financial disclosure around the Clinton Foundation (would it be so terrible to have a president who's not taking money from the government of Qatar?).

UPDATE: Ah, memories:

Eight years ago, when Hillary parachuted into NY to become our Senator, she and Howard Wolfson became completely obsessed with opponent Rick Lazio's tax returns, which he did not release until the end of August.

They talked about them at every opportunity. In early July, Hillary called it "frankly disturbing." A guy in an Uncle Sam outfit was dispatched to be a nuisance at various Lazio events in August. Howard himself showed up once to try to rattle Lazio by offering him a copy of some Chappaqua property tax receipt after Lazio said he'd release his state returns as soon as Hillary released hers (which didn't exist, because she had just moved up here).

Ken Starr tactics!

Comments

I guess the Clintons don't remember who Ken Starr is--he wouldn't have just asked for the returns now, would he?

Posted by calling all toasters | March 6, 2008 12:21 PM

IOKIYAC

Posted by ntr Fausto Carmona | March 6, 2008 12:21 PM

You're kidding -- every politician running for anything has either released tax records or been asked to for decades now. That the Ken Starr treatment? Ken Starr would be insulted.

Posted by too many steves | March 6, 2008 12:26 PM

Well, the media should be giving her the Brenda Starr treatment and getting to the bottom of this!! Sorry.

Posted by FreeBenoit | March 6, 2008 12:29 PM

The Clintons think Obama should be vetted but that they are so honorable, it is unnecessary in their case.

Posted by JackD | March 6, 2008 12:31 PM

I like Obama too, but Matt really has sold his pundit soul to him. In another post up here, he defends Obama on mandates before admitting that, yes, HRC has the better proposal, and he endorses rooting around in the Clintons' tax returns. Dude, HRC is eminently vulnerable on the merits (Iraq, Iran, the lobbyists' public defender) without descending into the muck. Maybe we could have a campaign with Enlightenment values instead of with cut-rate tricks learned from our fever-swamp opponents.

Posted by scottreads | March 6, 2008 12:31 PM

It's the victim game all over again. The Clinton approach has been far more Starresque than anything Obama has done.

However, just wait.

Posted by john | March 6, 2008 12:31 PM

The tactic is to say he's weak if he doesn't attack and say he's Inspector Javier-Star if he does.

Posted by bjd | March 6, 2008 12:32 PM

Scottreads, if there's anyone who's sold his soul, it's someone who's defending the idea that it's reasonable for Clinton, while arguing that she's fully "vetted", to say she'll release her tax returns but not until after she's the nominee.

If there's nothing in them that's going to be bad in the general, then why on earth would she not release them now? If there is something, better we know now than after it's too late.

Posted by KCinDC | March 6, 2008 12:37 PM

Scottreads:

Releasing tax returns is absolutely standard practice for politicians running for high office, which is perhaps why BHO and all the other candidates already coughed them up. If a candidate is allowed to self-fund, as Hillary has done, why shouldn't we be able to know where the money comes from?

I defy you to explain why Obama must scour his records for anything Rezko-related, but if your liege-lord is asked to disclose how she became rich overnight, it's a "fever swamp" tactic.

Posted by blymlvy | March 6, 2008 12:37 PM

Hasn't Hillary Clinton promised to release her tax returns by April 15? Isn't that sufficient? Why do they have to be released today especially when, as she correctly states, there are some 20 years of tax returns out in the public record about her family.

And as for the Clinton Foundation, I guess I'm a little unpersuaded that donations to a foundation - a 501(c)(3), I'm guessing - constitute "money to a president." I mean, this is a foundation that's committed to all manner of charitable works, including HIV/AIDS eradication and poverty alleviation. If the Government of Qatar wants to give money to that noble cause, well what is the big deal?

I'd prefer to have a debate about the issues - Iraq, for instance - rather than descending into these kind of tactics.

Posted by Joe Strummer | March 6, 2008 12:40 PM

I think it's over for Obama, and I'm a supporter. With the Nafta-meme established, the Rezko trial in full bloom and Pennsylvania's very friendly Hillary demographics, I'd say she'll finally start to lead in the popular vote after that primary, and will narrow the delegate gap enough so that super-delegates will feel comfortable voting for her.

I don't believe Obama will ever regain his lead in the Gallup poll, and the other states won't be enough to push him over the top.

It's too bad. I like Obama a lot and think he'd make a great president. But I've resigned myself now to a Hillary win and the liklihood of a McCain presidency.

God help us all.

Posted by Jefrf | March 6, 2008 12:44 PM

Why do they have to be released today especially when, as she correctly states, there are some 20 years of tax returns out in the public record about her family.

Yes, for the years the family was merely upper middle class.

I'm guessing that may have changed over the past six years.

Posted by Davebo | March 6, 2008 12:44 PM

Vetting has kind of a larger meaning. It doesn't mean knowing every single thing about a candidate's personal life.

Let's put it quite bluntly. Hillary Clinton has 20 years of charges being leveled at her and her husband about their various business dealings and associations. Voters have factored that in. Additional nuggets of information - money from Qatar (oh, how terrible!) - are hardly going to change the average voters' assessment of her or her viability.

The same is not true of Obama, who when news of Rezko started hitting the mainstream media late last week and earlier this week, started seeing problems in the polls. People perceive Obama as a transcendant figure who is unsullied by politics. Even so, he's only got a 100 more delegates than she's got, and virtually no advantage in the popular vote.

Additional suggestions that Obama might not be squeaky clean are going to hurt him a lot more than her.

That's what vetting means. Clinton's support already has factored in such information. Not so with Obama. So sullying him up makes him better able to withstand Republican assaults in the fall, if he's the nominee. Or will encourage superdelegates to pick the more vetted candidate.

Posted by Joe Strummer | March 6, 2008 12:47 PM

Maybe we could have a campaign with Enlightenment values

What's Enlightenment-speak for "and a pony"?

Posted by Ryan | March 6, 2008 12:47 PM

Back in 2000, Wolfson was demanding to see the tax returns of Hillary Clinton's rival for her Senate campaign:

"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

Was it a Ken Starr-like attack back then, too?

Posted by Samuel Brainsample | March 6, 2008 12:47 PM

It would be nice if Mr. Yglesias and his pal Don Williams would get their stories straight. Mr. Yglesias apparently feels that the Clintons have been bought off by billionaires in Qatar while Mr. Williams feels that the Clintons have been bought off by Hiam Saban. Not to mention the contributions from Saudi Arabia for the Clinton Library.

Posted by SLC | March 6, 2008 12:50 PM

Hillary can't win, and this is not helpful to Obama. In that spirit, and I'm feeling especially magnanimous, I'm a broker the convention for y'all:

1. Obama gets President. Clinton majority leader.

2. The majority leader spot is opened by making Reid VP (where he can't do any damage, plus he's an old white guy which helps Obama in the general and splits mormon votes from reps in the mountain west).

3. As majority leader, Clinton is free to introduce her health care plan, with mandate, and Obama agrees to back it.

4. Clinton gets to pick a New Yorker to be DHS secretary, with attendant control of patronage.

5. Even if McCain wins, Reid doesn't get the job back. Clinton gets to be the head of the party for the next 4 years in this scenario.

You're welcome, Democrats.

Posted by David B. | March 6, 2008 12:52 PM

I think Jefrf is exactly right, except that I think Hillary's chances against McCain aren't terrible. That said, it is surprising to me how much more viable McCain is given the way this primary season has gone, and given that the Democratic Party clearly had, just last week, what I took to be much better candidates, much more excitement.

I blame Democratic Party rules with proportional allocation of delegates instead of winner-take-all that basically dragged this season out well beyond its useful life.

The good news, if there's any, is that McCain (like Bush I) is going to be a one term president. By then, hopefully, the DNC will have fixed its arcane selection rules.

So the Democrats will have an excellent shot in 2012, as they did in 1992.

Posted by Joe Strummer | March 6, 2008 12:52 PM

Give it time. I think, over the summer, people will get incredibly bored with McCain, and slowly realize that he's Bush the 3rd (get it? Both 3rd term, and 3rd Bush!).

Posted by Tony | March 6, 2008 12:56 PM

I voted for Clinton, but you idiots that think Hillary now has the inside track towards the nomination need to get a reality check. You are delusional and you're not doing anyone any favors.

Posted by Stacy | March 6, 2008 1:02 PM

Well, given all the ups-and-downs and Obama's still substantial delegate lead, I'd say its about fifty-fifty right now. But just four days ago, I thought it was 90% Obama, so Hillary Satanus has certainly come a long way pretty quickly.

I also agree that winner-take-all (or at least winner-big-bonus) primaries would be much better in the future. But leaving that aside, the Democrats *really* have to stop using a totally crazy system where Hillary wins Texas by a good margin, but Obama gets most of the Texas delegates. That's just nuts!

Posted by RKU | March 6, 2008 1:04 PM

Sure, Joe Strummer, winner-take-all rules never lead to contentious endings with candidates nearly tied. The 2000 presidential election was decisive and inarguable, and no one ever complained about the fact that Bush won while losing the popular vote.

Winner-take-all is insanely undemocratic and much more likely to lead to disasters than proportional voting. It's ridiculous for a candidate to get all the delegates for a state by winning with 35% of the votes; that means 65% of the voters are being completely ignored.

Posted by KCinDC | March 6, 2008 1:05 PM

"I think it's over for Obama, and I'm a supporter."

The oldest rhetorical trick on the internet. No Obama supporter would suggest it's over for Obama when he's got an all but insurmountable lead in delegates, is about to pick up the next two primaries, and came out of one of the worst weeks of the campaign for him with a net loss of under 10 delegates.

You seem about as ignorant of facts on the ground. Are you sure you don't work for the Clinton campaign?

Posted by Ridder | March 6, 2008 1:06 PM

As someone slightly leaning toward Obama, but who finds HRC very appealing too, nothing makes me want to vote for her less than being reminded of all the 90's worse figures. I hear the name Ken Starr and it makes me cringe to think that, Vince Foster, Whitewater, Lewinsky, etc. will be household names again for the next eight years. Ugh.

Posted by Lombard | March 6, 2008 1:07 PM

As someone slightly leaning toward Obama, but who finds HRC very appealing too, nothing makes me want to vote for her less than being reminded of all the 90's worse figures. I hear the name Ken Starr and it makes me cringe to think that, Vince Foster, Whitewater, Lewinsky, etc. will be household names again for the next eight years. Ugh.

Posted by Lombard | March 6, 2008 1:08 PM

As someone slightly leaning toward Obama, but who finds HRC very appealing too, nothing makes me want to vote for her less than being reminded of all the 90's worse figures. I hear the name Ken Starr and it makes me cringe to think that, Vince Foster, Whitewater, Lewinsky, etc. will be household names again for the next eight years. Ugh.

Posted by Lombard | March 6, 2008 1:08 PM

As someone slightly leaning toward Obama, but who finds HRC very appealing too, nothing makes me want to vote for her less than being reminded of all the 90's worse figures. I hear the name Ken Starr and it makes me cringe to think that, Vince Foster, Whitewater, Lewinsky, etc. will be household names again for the next eight years. Ugh.

Posted by Lombard | March 6, 2008 1:09 PM

As someone slightly leaning toward Obama, but who finds HRC very appealing too, nothing makes me want to vote for her less than being reminded of all the 90's worse figures. I hear the name Ken Starr and it makes me cringe to think that, Vince Foster, Whitewater, Lewinsky, etc. will be household names again for the next eight years. Ugh.

Posted by Lombard | March 6, 2008 1:09 PM

As someone slightly leaning toward Obama, but who finds HRC very appealing too, nothing makes me want to vote for her less than being reminded of all the 90's worse figures. I hear the name Ken Starr and it makes me cringe to think that, Vince Foster, Whitewater, Lewinsky, etc. will be household names again for the next eight years. Ugh.

Posted by Lombard | March 6, 2008 1:09 PM

As someone slightly leaning toward Obama, but who finds HRC very appealing too, nothing makes me want to vote for her less than being reminded of all the 90's worse figures. I hear the name Ken Starr and it makes me cringe to think that, Vince Foster, Whitewater, Lewinsky, etc. will be household names again for the next eight years. Ugh.

Posted by Lombard | March 6, 2008 1:09 PM

Why the secrecy? They're public servants aren't they. This stonewalling on this request is only going to arouse suspicions.

Posted by watchtower | March 6, 2008 1:10 PM

"I think it's over for Obama, and I'm a supporter." Does not say supports Obama. Indeed, without an indirect object for "supporter" to modify, the claim is that the speaker is a cup.

Posted by David B. | March 6, 2008 1:10 PM

Stacy,

Hey, I'd be interested to hear some ... you know ... reasons? Calling me delusional and unhelpful isn't all that much of an argument.

Also, re-reading my post, I should have written "greater possibility of a McCain presidency" not "liklihood." Hillary Clinton is clearly a terrific campaigner who knows exactly what it will take to beat McCain.

I just don't think she's as likly to beat him as Obama.

Posted by Jefrf | March 6, 2008 1:10 PM

She may have an outside chance, but its certainly not 50-50. She essentially has a 0% chance of being ahead in pledged delegates.

Posted by Stacy | March 6, 2008 1:11 PM

She may have an outside chance, but its certainly not 50-50. She essentially has a 0% chance of being ahead in pledged delegates.

Posted by Stacy | March 6, 2008 1:11 PM

RKU, the Texas system may be totally crazy, but it's very different from the systems in all other states, so it's not an argument against the system in general. Also, the only way you can say that Clinton won Texas by a good margin is if you completely ignore the caucus, but a caucus is also a method for people to express their opinion.

Clinton won the primary vote by slightly less than 100,000 votes. Since 1.1 million people participated in the caucus, and Obama won by about 56% to 44%, approximately 130,000 more people caucused for Obama than for Clinton. So much for the "good margin" in favor of Clinton. Under those circumstances, it's hardly unfair that he got a handful more delegates than she did.

The fact that Clinton's campaign doesn't have the organizing skills to win caucuses is not a point in her favor.

Posted by KCinDC | March 6, 2008 1:16 PM

Additional suggestions that Obama might not be squeaky clean are going to hurt him a lot more than her. That's what vetting means.

I think you're right -- because it's hard to see how she could be hurt any more. Let's face it, Hillary didn't beat the Republican smear machine, she lost to it -- and has the 48% negatives to prove it. Bill batted about .500 because he was likable. Hillary isn't likable. She'll be eaten alive by the same garbage that Bill skated over.

Posted by asdf | March 6, 2008 1:17 PM

Jefrf,
Does Stacy really need to point out the reasons that Clinton does not have the advantage right now? Well, I'll just point out the two most obvious one. Obama is leading in delegates by a margin that Hillary can't make up. Also, he's leading in the popular vote. Hmmm? You are delusional.

Posted by Rob Bob | March 6, 2008 1:21 PM

because it's hard to see how she could be hurt any more

She's hurting herself more. Every day she uses these Republican-style smears against Obama and praises McCain, she does more damage to her reputation among substantial numbers of Democrats who still have positive feelings toward the Clintons.

Posted by KCinDC | March 6, 2008 1:27 PM

"Joe Strummer" please stop using that moniker. You're sullying his name. You're defiling the name, all of which is pissing people off.

I recently saw a good bio-documentary on him and no doubt he would tell you to use your own name, man!

Bloombergian centrist Robert Reich, like Matt, has been really good lately:

I suppose I should not be surprised. If HRC has experience in anything, it's in fighting when cornered. When Bill Clinton lost his governorship, it was HRC who commissioned Dick Morris to advise the Clintons on a no-holds-barred campaign to retake the governor's mansion. At the start of 1995, when Newt Gingrich and company took over Congress and the Clinton administration looked in danger of becoming irrelevant, it was HRC who installed Dick Morris in the White House, along with his sidekick Mark Penn, to "triangulate" by distancing Bill Clinton from the Democratic Party and moving the Administration rightward. (When Morris was subsequently discovered to have a penchant for the toes of prostitutes the White House dumped him but kept Penn on.) And now Mark Penn is the "chief strategist" of HRC's campaign.

Posted by Peter K. | March 6, 2008 1:34 PM

Good reasons. I agree I'm somewhat delusional that she'll be able to come within 100 delegates -- that would be very hard.

Nevertheless, winning Pennsylvania (which I feel certain she'll win by 10 points or more)will be a huge boon to her in subsequent elections. And media coverage of Obama is just going to get worse now that he's lost two big states (I know, I know; the delegate count didn't change much, but winning the popular vote is what counts PR-wise).

If she wins the popular vote, which I think is a good possibility (not counting MI and FLA, Obama has a 580,000 vote lead out of 25M votes total -- she gained 350k on Obama from Texas and Ohio), the superdelegates will feel free to go to her.

It's not ironclad. She doesn't have an inside track. But my gut tells me that Obama's not going to pull this one out.

Posted by Jefrf | March 6, 2008 1:40 PM

There is not a scintilla of class in either Wolfson nor his candidate----not a gram of shame.

Watch for more ridiculous channeling of Ken Starr & Karl Rove as the black card mysteriously gets played again---like it was when Strickland brought Hillary around to those rural jurisdications in Ohio that went 79-20 in favor of HRC. Strickland knows where & how to get so far back in the holler they gotta pipe in the sunlight.

That's where HRC's core voters dwell.

Posted by daveinboca | March 6, 2008 2:02 PM

"Joe Strummer" please stop using that moniker.

Agreed. Please reply to "Joe Strummer" by his real name Joe Thatcher.

Posted by bjd | March 6, 2008 2:15 PM

"Joe Strummer" please stop using that moniker. You're sullying his name. You're defiling the name, all of which is pissing people off.

Well, I suspect that old Joe would be a Hillary supporter, especially for her support for universal health care.

Posted by John Mellor | March 6, 2008 2:23 PM

That's where HRC's core voters dwell.

How true. Thanks for the chuckle.

Posted by Jay | March 6, 2008 2:30 PM

You've gotta be kidding me.

The Republicans have this sort of ammo locked and ready on Obama:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obamas_iraqi_oil_for_food_conn.html

They are going to associate him with Saddam-tainted money AND Halliburton-style contracts.

I guess the Obama-Cheney relation goes beyond genealogical...

What are the Republicans gonna do to Hillary? Give her the Ken Starr treatment all over again? Hillary has been through this baptism of fire and has proven that she can take the heat, while Obama has a melt-down during a news conference!

This is the experience quotient that matters.

Get real guys, Hillary's the one to win in November.

Posted by Ringo Meza | March 6, 2008 2:32 PM

As long as they aren't getting money from the estate of Pablo Escobar, the House of Saud, the Kim dynasty, Halliburton, Blackwater, the PLA, etc., I don't really care. I just don't want there to be some huge bomb in there that would turn out to make her toxic in the general. The fact that she won't release them, which is standard practice and a principle she felt was important to adhere to in 2000, is suspicious. Is this just them being overly shell-shocked and paranoid, like how Nixon losing in 1960 led to Watergate (against McGovern, of all people)? We already know about the businessman from Kazakhstan. This isn't like being the victim of warrantless wiretapping or anything. If you want to run for office, then you have to do this stuff. She's supposed to be the insider who knows stuff (but not apparently how the Texas primacus works, what was in the Iraq NIE, how interest rates affect inflation, etc.). If this is over something stupid, like how Kerry didn't release some of his military records because he was afraid people would learn he was a B and C student at Yale, then that doesn't speak well of them. If there is a bombshell in there, we should know about it before we choose the nominee.

Posted by Reality Man | March 6, 2008 2:32 PM

You've gotta be kidding me.

The Republicans have this sort of ammo locked and ready on Obama:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obamas_iraqi_oil_for_food_conn.html

They are going to associate him with Saddam-tainted money AND Halliburton-style contracts.

I guess the Obama-Cheney relation goes beyond genealogical...

What are the Republicans gonna do to Hillary? Give her the Ken Starr treatment all over again? Hillary has been through this baptism of fire and has proven that she can take the heat, while Obama has a melt-down during a news conference!

This is the experience quotient that matters.

Get real guys, Hillary's the one to win in November.

Posted by Ringo Meza | March 6, 2008 2:34 PM

I'm an Obama supporter, and maybe it's my natural pessimism, but I have a really bad feeling about this now. He is probably more likely than not to get the nomination, but I really think the only way it will seem legitimate to many people is if he wins Pennsylvania.

On the bright side, if he does win Pennsylvania, he will have absolutely, incontrovertibly won. He's got seven weeks...

Posted by Brendan | March 6, 2008 2:49 PM

I really think the only way it will seem legitimate to many people is if he wins Pennsylvania.

Maybe so, if the Clintonites keep hammering on their new rules for legitimacy, with all the various categories of states that don't count.

On the other hand, Clinton has no path to the nomination that will seem legitimate, so that's an even bigger problem.

if he does win Pennsylvania, he will have absolutely, incontrovertibly won

I hope so, but it depends on how much longer the media are willing to go along with the amazing Clinton goalpost-shifting machine.

Posted by KCinDC | March 6, 2008 3:03 PM

I really think the only way it will seem legitimate to many people is if he wins Pennsylvania.

A legitimate victory is won by playing by the rules. That is what Obama has done, it's what Clinton wants to negate.
Team Obama never expected to win in Pennsylvania. His plan was to win the most delegates, period. There are no rules that say you most win big states, just win the most delegates.

Posted by bjd | March 6, 2008 3:38 PM

I agree. I'm just being pragmatic. If a lot of people (irrationally) perceive Obama's victory as illegitimate, that's bad.

The other reason I really want him to win PA, of course, is that it would end this sooner rather than later. But I know it's a long shot.

Posted by Brendan | March 6, 2008 3:56 PM

Hillary's steady decline into George W. Bush's world, where reason and facts are secondary to self-serving spin and denial, highlights Al Gore's absence from the on-going fight for the Democratic nomination.

At what point does Gore begin to lose face for not taking a position in this dog fight? After blasting the very GOP-style tactics currently employed by the Clinton campaign in his book Assualt on Reason, his decision to sit silently on the sidelines is, in my estimation, a cowardly stance.

Posted by Stax | March 6, 2008 4:04 PM

At what point does Gore begin to lose face for not taking a position in this dog fight? After blasting the very GOP-style tactics currently employed by the Clinton campaign in his book Assualt on Reason, his decision to sit silently on the sidelines is, in my estimation, a cowardly stance.

I agree 100%. Gore, Edwards, etc. It's disillusioning. Maybe they think it's a bad idea to come out in public, when there is little chance they can convince Hillary of anything. Plus, Hillary has received a lot of votes, which is why I understand Pelosi staying out of it. Hopefully some of these people will come out before the convention.

Then again maybe they see Hillary as dead in the water and don't feel the need to stick their neck out. I don't see her getting the nomination unless the Obama campaisn screws up massively and that's unlikely given their track record.

Posted by Peter K. | March 6, 2008 4:33 PM

I'm an Obama supporter, and maybe it's my natural pessimism, but I have a really bad feeling about this now. He is probably more likely than not to get the nomination, but I really think the only way it will seem legitimate to many people is if he wins Pennsylvania.

How many names are you going to post this same post under before you tire of it?

Posted by J.B. | March 6, 2008 4:51 PM

Really makes me question if she learned anything the last 30 years. Get it out there Hillary, the stalling almost always ends up making the "crime" seem worse.

Sometimes I also wonder if scientists will eventually discover a gene that shows that people prone to run for office also are prone to the delusion that hiding bad stuff will make it to go away.

Posted by artappraiser | March 6, 2008 5:11 PM

Really makes me question if she learned anything the last 30 years. Get it out there Hillary, the stalling almost always ends up making the "crime" seem worse.

Yup. This Ken Starr comment is a blessing to Obama. It both conveys the toughness and doggedness that some claim he has thus far failed to demonstrate, as well as reminding everyone of all the scandals associated with the Clintons in the 90's. If he's really lucky, she will hold out until April 16th. I can see the TV ads in Penn. already.

Posted by Just Karl | March 6, 2008 7:00 PM

Get serious - corruption is the Clinton's middle name.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 8, 2008 2:13 AM