"Clinton's negatives are well-known, Obama's less so. Any shortcomings, inconsistencies or misstatements in Obama's past will be exploited by Republicans in the fall campaign if he's the nominee. It's best for Democrats to vet them now."

I actually agree with the second part about getting these issues out now, because I don't think experimenting with drugs has anything to do with anything especially since those polls are bullshit considering Bush was "elected" twice, and although he didn't confirm his drug use, he didn't really have to. But, I don't agree at all with the slipped-by comment "Clinton's negatives are well-known." Just because she's been in the public eye for 20 years doesn't mean we know all of her issues. Some might say that gives her more ongoing issues. I think I might like President Clinton as a person, we all have guy friends who are idiots when it comes to women, and I never bought that she didn't know he was a cheater. However, I can concede he was a decent moderate President even if some really fucked up shit (like NAFTA and DADT) was enacted during his years in the White House. I just can't judge his job as a President by the job he did manipulating young women to suck his dick, just as, ultimately, I can't judge the job she'll do as President by how she stood by her man no matter how much she and her husband's mistress(es) supposedly set back women's rights 30 years -- other than believing he's a liability because of his lack of self-control. Having a campaign manager who's in bed with BlackWater is much more of a concern to me than someone who did a little blow earlier in their life. And no, I've never touched the stuff. Really.