THE NY TIMES WRONG ON CLINTON

A New York Times editorial this week endorsing Senator Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary is appalling for what it does say and what it does not say.

I had to re-read one sentence a few times simply to make sure I “heard” it right. “On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two.” Did the Times really just say that? Did the Times really just say there is no real gulf separating Clinton and Obama on the major issues? Are they kidding? From day one Obama has consistently been against the war. Clinton, on the other hand, voted for the war and recently angered many by voting for a Bush-backed resolution that pushes my country closer to war with Iran. Obama has been steadfast in his opposition to the war and his opposition to needlessly escalating matters with Iran. No real gulf separating them? Well, I can’t think any gulf wider than supporting a war and opposing a war. But hey, that’s just me.

The Times editorial does not address the increasingly despicable behavior of former President Bill Clinton in Senator Clinton’s campaign, a campaign that is sending a powerful signal that electing Senator Clinton would essentially be electing a married couple to the presidency. Moreover, if Senator Clinton can’t reign in the former president in her campaign, what will happen if they return to the White House?

Some of Clinton’s key supporters and staff can be incredibly sleazy. And while Senator Clinton distances herself from their seedy and divisive proclamations, her inability or unwillingness to stop them raises another question: if you can’t restrain some of your key supporters and staff members, what will happen if you’re in the White House?

Andrew Young is reported to have said “Bill is every bit as black as Barack. He’s probably gone with more black women than Barack.” Not only is that a despicable thing to say (Young later said he was joking – fat chance), but why on earth should that statement make anyone want to vote for Senator Clinton?

And then, of course, there is the typical Clintonian spin (lying, folks) of being the ones who injected race as in issue into the campaign and now whine that Obama started it.

Obama is right when he says the country is sick of divisiveness. Obama is right when he says the American people are sick of fear being used on them as a kind of political crowd control. Obama is right when he says we need to stop thinking in terms of red states and blue states and get back to thinking in terms of the United States.

There is nothing uniting about the Clintons. And every time I find myself thinking we won’t be dumb enough to fall for their blatant character assassination of Obama and elect them to the White House, I remind myself that we elected George W. Bush – and you can’t get any dumber than that.

The New York Times support for Senator Clinton is support for a dual presidency, which is something the founding fathers would frown on. As for Senator Obama’s lack of experience, consider this for a moment: James Buchanan, considered by scholars to be one of the three worst American presidents, had more than 20 years in congress under his belt along with four years as secretary of state before being elected to the presidency. Abraham Lincoln had only two years in the House of Representatives.

To my mind it is the person’s character, not the length of their employ that makes the difference. And when it comes to character, Obama comes out on top, hands down. He has my vote.

CLINTON IN IOWA: LACKING HEART AND COURAGE

I wish I could like Hillary Clinton, but I can’t. I wish I could trust Hillary Clinton, but I can’t. I wish I could believe in Hillary Clinton’s heart and courage, but I can’t.

I am not the only one noticing the scuff marks of Clinton campaign shoe leather on Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland’s remarks in Sunday’s edition of The Columbus Dispatch. Strickland sharply criticized Iowa caucuses calling them “hugely undemocratic” because they “exclude so many people.” Wow! Really, Gov? Is that why you campaigned in Iowa with Clinton this weekend? Or did you guys use that time to create this rather obvious political ruse?

After Strickland’s remarks, the Clinton campaign quickly fired off a statement saying, in part, that Senator Clinton has “worked her heart out campaigning in Iowa because she knows it plays a unique and special role in the nominating process and that process must be protected.”

Please. Protected from what? Like it’s under attack? Spare me. Were Clinton the clear leader in Iowa, Strickland and Clinton would be calling the Iowa caucuses textbook democracy.

Even more revealing, the Clinton Campaign announced she would not be in Iowa caucus night because she needs to move on to New Hampshire.

So what about your heart and courage, Senator? Don’t you have the heart and courage to stand with your Iowa supporters and staff when the results some in? Apparently you don’t. Now that I do believe.