Freakin' New York Times

So this morning the NY Times endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

McCain I was not surprised about one whit. Over the last two years or so I thought he would be an excellent candidate and I was really hoping Guiliani's celebrity wouldn't knock him out. (It's starting to look like I don't have much to worry about there.)

But this Clinton endorsement. Ok, they aren't terribly critical of Obama, certainly not the way they were with Edwards and most of the Republicans, but I feel like they are looking at Hillary through rose-colored glasses.

What she was able to accomplish in NY may not hold on a national scale. And Bill is annoying the ever loving shit out of me. He needs to just SHUT UP and let his wife run HER race.

But anyway, their main contention is that there is more to Hillary than what you see on the surface (duh, though that is true of ALL the candidates) and that she has shown a great amount of intellect and a willingness to learn in order to achieve the best results. (As has Obama and Huckabee.) Ok, that's great. But I just think it is unrealistic. And quite honestly, I think it is a little unrealistic for me to think that Barack can win in the deep south and the midwest, but then, what democrat can?

Anyway... I can't help but wonder if part of the reason they endorsed Hillary is that she is the senator from New York. Because when it comes down to the differences between her and Barack as candidates, they admit that the major differences between them are years in Washington. And to that point, all I have to say is this: RICHARD NIXON.

You can read the article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri1.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

--E