While her husband Bill Clinton, the former President, was staging a passionate defense of his wife in South Carolina ‘for being such a polarizing figure’ on the news pages of the New York Times yesterday, the very same paper on the very same date, was endorsing her as their Democratic nominee for the 2008 presidential election on their editorial pages.

The juxtaposition of this news story to an editorial position in the same paper was striking.

In a somewhat psychotic response to a simple, but astute and right on observation, Bill Clinton said: “The only people that she’s a polarizing figure around are people who don’t know her.” he said. “The reason I think she’s the most electable Democrat has nothing to do with race or gender. It is that they have systematically polarized the country, the right-wing Republican faction has. They first took over the Republican Party and then they performed reverse plastic surgery on all the Democrats,” starting with Jimmy Carter in 1980.

He went on to say, “It worked for them every single time except with me,” he said. “And the reason it didn’t work with me is that I was one of them. I was a white Southern Protestant male who grew up on the playground being bullied by people like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove and all those guys. I knew what they were doing. What they did was, they would probe and they would hit somebody where they thought they were strong,” he said, pointing to the “Swift Boat attacks” against Senator John Kerry.

“The only reason I survived it is I know those people,” he said. “I grew up with them.”

Bill grew up with Lee and Karl and they were bulling him on the playground?

Really!

Also, there’s a lot of ‘me me’ in Bill’s defense of ‘her her,’ which seems to be a pattern in his campaign stumping for her in a primary state when she’s campaigning in California, already conceiding defeat in South Carolina.

Do we seem to recall how ‘she she ‘ when, she was the first lady,’ was defending Bill when he in was in the oval office with someone called Monica Lewinsky, calling all of the allegations against her and her husband, ‘a right wing conspiracy’?

There were a lot of ‘they’s’ in the story and ‘bullies’ and apparently chips on the shoulders, that only a student of Freud could understand, but certainly not me.

And it is interesting to note that in the Times editorial, lauding the attributes of Hillary, they suggested, “As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton’s overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)”

Well, Bill you continue to fuel the fire, because I believe you and your wife are both polarizing and divisive and have no chance of uniting this country together or individually.

We don’t need a two-headed presidency.

I don’t agree with the Times’ endorsement, but I do encourage it, for I believe the best chance the Republicans have for another eight years in the White House, is if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee.