Back To The 1990s ...

... when Bill Clinton was a less impressive version of Barack Obama. Via Drudge, this is a classic NYT piece from 1992:

Eventually, most of the superdelegates are likely to back Mr. Clinton, if only because there is no place else for them to go. But they will do so "with extreme reluctance," one said, and the delay and the grudging spirit makes it harder for Mr. Clinton to move his campaign onto a higher plateau, free of character issues.

It's a useful reminder that many people saw the moral deficiencies of Bill Clinton long before Ken Starr poisoned the wells. And that young and new candidates will always - and not unreasonably - prompt bouts of buyers' remorse, skepticism and scrutiny.