I must admit, that my priors on the possibility of something being a good Peggy Noonan op-ed -- let alone a good Noonan op-ed in the WSJ -- were pretty low. But the piece in question does seem to me pretty much on the ball.

Well, if it's any consolation phil I thought of you before posting, having known your distaste of Noonan. I'm glad it met with your approval.

Peggy Noonan's assessment of the Dem side is way wide of the mark in my opinion. Noonan wants to make an issue out of the seemliness of a former president, the ostensible head of the Dem party, attacking another Dem presidential candidate. At this point I should say that I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm supporting Edwards. Now, back to the Clintons: They're not gonna "tear the party apart." Noonan wants HRC to fight with one hand behind her back. Politics is not for the meek, as Noonan well knows. It's a battle. And if the Obama team keeps responding to Clinton camp attacks by calling unfair, Dems will eventually take note, and it won't be a good thing for Obama. In the general election, the GOP is gonna hit Obama every bit as hard, if not harder, as the Clinton team, and Dems are looking for a candidate who can take a hit, and return it even harder. So the heck with seemliness. Noonan's column, Dem-wise anyway, seems like just so much concern-trolling.