What we have is a demented marriage of convenience: she's to-the-hilt desperate and will do just about anything at this point to be the nominee, and the gnashing teeth on the right oh-so want her to be the one given she's got a TON more baggage to attack, assail, and smear than does Obama.
Bill Kristol's column on Monday was all about singing the praises of Hillary at the expense of Obama. Look, isn't it a good enough rule of thumb that if the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Bill Kristol, and the FOX network are for Hillary, we should be against her?
And regarding the the Kristol column, it continues to be the same old pap and recycled snores, but one item in particular really struck a chord. He criticizes Obama for refusing to debate Hillary in Indiana:
On Friday in Indiana, Obama talked tough in response to a question: “I get pretty fed up with people questioning my patriotism.” And, he continued, “I am happy to have that debate with them any place, anytime.” He’s happy to have fantasy debates with unnamed people who are allegedly challenging his patriotism. But he’s not willing to have a real debate with the real person he’s competing against for the nomination.But in the sentence just prior to this paragraph, Kristol offers the completely understandable reason why Obama has made this decision: "[D]ebates would give Clinton equal time in the spotlight, and would make Obama’s advantage in paid media in Indiana and North Carolina far less significant."
Duh. Kristol knows how this game works and even makes that obvious, yet that doesn't stop him from sticking head up butt and writing something naive just after it. If he was backing a Republican front-runner in Obama's spot you'd hear none of this from Kristol. It's Campaigning 101.
It just makes Kristol look disingenuous and laughably stupid. Another in a series of dopey columns by him. Bravo NY Times!