NYTimes editorializes about Clinton campaign tactics

According to www.factcheck.org (the Annenberg Foundation's rigorously nonpartisan campaign watchdog website), both Clinton and Obama have repeatedly slandered each other. FactCheck details this minutely. So why single out Clinton?

The Left calls Clinton a Republican--the vilest epithet they can imagine. The Right calls her a socialist--their worst epithet. Both view her pragmatism as lack of principle. I view their whirly eyes with horror.

Meanwhile, the NYTimes Editorial Board carps about Clinton's campaign tactics while it totally ignores key reasons why both Clinton AND Obama could lose the centrist/independent vote--and thus the election:

1. Neither has vowed to veto pork-laden, earmark-marked-up spending bills. McCain has.

Of course it doesn't take courage for a Republican to oppose a Democratic Congress (or vice versa). Still, centrists see a lot in electing a chief executive of a different party than the one running the legislature.

That's why here in California, about as blue a state as they come, we keep sending Republican governators to Sacramento--they're a check on the Democratic legislature.

Both parties have proven that they can't govern themselves. They throw money into projects that will help them get re-elected, not into things we actually need, like repairing our crumbling infrastructure.

2. The other key reason centrists look askance at both Clinton and Obama is their desertion of blue-collar workers--the traditional core of the Democratic Party.

Over the last several decades blue-collar workers' earnings have sagged 5-25%, depending on industry and region, as a direct result of competition from citizens of other countries (90% from Mexico & thereabouts) working here illegally.

They take jobs from Americans, push down wages for the rest, and suck up the social services in blue collar neighborhoods--especially in the ERs and in the schools.

Of course if Clinton and Obama defended American workers they'd incur the wrath of powerful special interest groups: the Chamber of Commerce, racialist organizations such as The Race (AKA La Raza), the Catholic Church, and academic leftists.

Everyone knows most Republican voters oppose illegal immigration (while the GOP leadership favors it). Fewer realize that 40% of Democrats do too, and even 25% of Latino Americans.

The Democratic Party has long been accused of pandering to special interest groups at the expense of its core constituency. This is an example of where that accusation sticks.

Dirty campaign tactics? The NYTimes is obsessing about how the game is being played but losing sight of the goals.

I don't want to see McCain 2008 in office (McCain 2000 was a different story, but he appears to have died & been replaced by his evil twin). I want universal health care. I want something approaching a sane approach to the Islamofascists' campaign against us.

But I also don't want to see the American Southwest turned into a Mexican ghetto. Do you realize that even today the most-watched TV station in our third largest city only broadcasts in Spanish? The Southwest is turning into a Mexican ghetto that's displacing American multiculturalism with a Hispanic monoculture.

None of this affects the NYTimes Editorial Board, nor its family, friends, or neighbors. You love working stiffs...at a comfortable distance. And you'll have to give up some comfortable misconceptions if you really want to help put a Democrat in the White House.

Ehkzu www.blogzu.blogspot.com