Why now?

This past week Bill Clinton has taken a few iron-fisted punches at Barack Obama. Whether he is being canny, as some speculate, or whether he is just angry (when has Clinton felt a need to behave like an adult?) the outrageous things he said (like comparing Obama's words about his wife to a "hit job") put Obama in a difficult position. If he punches back, he runs the risk of sullying his image as a peacemaker. If he doesn't he looks like he's lost the initiative.

It says a lot about where we are in the US that, after seven years with a profoundly scary Bush fils, we prefer to return the Presidency to the wife of a man with such an enormous ego. Immature as his behavior was when President, I found a lot to admire about Bill Clinton. Despise this Administration or not, I'm worried about a Clinton monarchy. Yes, Hillary Clinton has more experience-but the bass line of entitlement in the Clinton campaign is tiresome.

Then the N Y Times Editorial Board endorsed Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate, and John McCain as the Republican one.
That raised a whole host of other questions-about the New York Times. Why are they endorsing someone so fast? Yes, it's the Thursday/Friday before the New York primaries. But it is possible that Super Tuesday won't settle the race for either party-nor should it. Why is the Times tossing its weight around when only a few states have even had primaries?

Read the AJR story linked above.

I'm now thinking it doesn't much matter who the NYT endorses. Because apparently few pay much heed, the opinion of those near the top of the editorial greasy pole is more of an annoyance factor.

What do you think?

If anyone remembers what they did the last election, let us know! I wish they would just hold off-and let us figure it out one state at a time.