It's the Money

Daniel Henninger has an interesting theory about why even "sensible" Democrats like David Boren and Sam Nunn have reached out to endorse Barack Obama. It's the fundraising -- fatigue with the way the Clintons have done it, and assurance that Obama can do it well enough that he's become a credible figure to end the Clintonian sway over the Democratic party.

What's not clear is whether the calculus of people like Nunn and Boren is correct. Which, in the final analysis, is better for the Democrat party: To have at its head ethically compromised "New Democrats" like Bill and Hillary, or an out-and-out leftist like Barack Obama, who may not be as "pure" as his most ardent supporters believe?