As the Democratic primary season drags on, we know the show by heart: It's "experience" vs. "change." But I can't believe I'm about to do this — I'm going to defend Hillary Clinton.
Why? Because when The New York Times viciously attacks someone in an editorial, that means that person must be doing something right. It's the "enemy of my enemy" theory that works in politics, as well as the salad bar at the Olive Garden.
The bottom line: Barack Obama is about change. But what is that change? It's not substance, it's style.
Fact is, not a single idea Barack has bandied about is new. He's every bit as liberal as Ted Kennedy on a bender and his ideology is in lockstep with the some of the most disastrous progressive thinking of the last 20 years. Check his voting record.
Hilary knows this, but has no idea how to explain it without the Obamaites coming down on her. So she's screwed. She might actually be a fairly mediocre president, but it's not going to happen, because she's the old crone at Cinderella's ball. And it's Obama's foot that fits the slipper.
This is not to say Barack doesn't really believe in change. For him, change means "pick me" and that's it. There are no revolutionary ideas, or concrete plans. He’s just an extremely charming man who wants to be president.
Is that enough? Please let me know. I'll be out back tending to my roses. They cover the graves.
And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.