I haven’t written anything about the presidential candidates lately, but it is no secret that I am a Hillary Clinton supporter. This weekend, the Barack Obama campaign turned me off even more. Why would a campaign publish in the New York Times their strategy? Since when do you publish and advertise your strategy for beating another candidate? It is so politically dubious, I don’t see how people can remotely still think that Barack Obama is the candidate of “hope.” Mark Penn, Hillary’s strategist (and the boss of someone I know), says it quite well in this blog post on Hillary’s page. The Democratic debate was disgraceful last night. I am starting to not respect Obama and Edwards at all (this is particularly disturbing considering I loved my North Carolina Edwards for so long) because the attacks stink of desparation. They also appear to be total frauds based on the “new and hopeful” types of campaigns that they swore that they were going to wage. Obviously, there was not much sincerity in those words (oh wait, but they declare that they are the trustworthy Washington outsiders…). What I respect about Hillary so much is that I know what I am getting with her. She is what she is and that is an intelligent, politically astute person. I know that her experience also begets her own political saviness. Why is that such a bad thing to Obama and Edwards? Oh right, because they don’t know anything about actually getting work done inside of Washington (which last time I checked, is where the President of the United States actually has to operate). They get to sound high-minded, so long as it behooves them.