The hypocrisy of this campaign has hit a new low with a top Clinton aid comparing Obama to Ken Starr. A couple of weeks ago, it was the â€œCult of Obamaâ€ and comparing him to Jim Jones. Does this campaign do anything but call people names?
The way I see it, the Obama/Starr comparison isnâ€™t even GOOD mud-slinging. Obama is pushing for the Clintons to release their tax statements not prosecuting perjury. If Obama had brought up Monica Lewinsky, then a retort of this kind â€œmightâ€ be logical. As things stands, it just looks a little loony.
Below are the top five differences between Obama and Starr:
1) Starr released a huge report detailing in sordid detail an inappropriate relationship between a sitting President and an intern. Obama pushed for Clinton to release her tax returns.
2) Starr sought to pursue perjury charges against a sitting President who also said to a national audience, â€œI did not have sex with that woman.â€ Obama had the nerve to make a strong showing and threaten Hillary Clintonâ€™s entitlement to the Democratic nomination.
3) Starr had to endure cheesy excuses form a sitting President who made such statements as, â€œIt depends on what your definition of â€˜isâ€™ is.â€ Obama made such cheesy statements like, â€œYes, we can.â€ In Spanish.
4) Starr spent a lot of American tax-payer money on his failed impeachment attempt. Obama made a lot of money in February.
5) Obama holds up hope for the future. Ken Starr held up a blue dress covered in a sitting Presidentâ€™s protein.
The only similarity between Ken Starr and Obama is they were both victims of the vast Clinton spin-machine. The â€œVast Right-wing Conspiracyâ€ meets the â€œCult of Obamaâ€. I wonder whatâ€™s going to come out of that campaign next? Maybe that Obama has a black babyâ€¦.?
[[Op-Ed post by MNP correspondent Jill the Shill]]