Wishing the best for John Edwards and What I don't like about the Clintons.

First off, I'd like to wish the best for John Edwards and his family, his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, in particular, as she has been battling cancer. It's a shame that Edwards wasn't given as much air time as his two Democratic opponents, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Edwards is a man full of passion and I hope that if a Democrat is elected in November, he/she is as serious about ending poverty as Edwards is/was. I don't know if he's thinking about it, but if Obama is the Democratic nominee, I kind of hope that Edwards is his running mate. I'm a bit pessimistic in regard to Edwards joining either campaign, due to his family situation, but you never know, I guess.

In regard to the Clintons, I'm getting a bit fed up with them. This is a registered Democrat speaking. For the past 16 years, I've had to hear family members of mine (Republicans) and friends of the family (Republicans, we live in Nebraska, the 4th reddest state in the country) blame the Clintons for just about everything. Bill's been blamed for 9/11, the current economic troubles. Heck, I've heard people blame him for cold weather in the winter and blistering heat in the summer, like he actually plays the role of Mother Nature or God, whatever one wants to believe. I've heard the same people refer to his wife, Hillary, as a weak person, since her husband cheated on her and she stood by his side. These people don't know the whole story. They don't know any of the Clintons personally. All they know is what they heard via Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and the like. I got rather fed up with the rhetoric. BUT, while I disagree with these people on their erroneous attacks, I am gaining a greater sense of why they may get a little aggravated with Bill and Hillary from time to time.

While I've heard the line, "They'll do anything to win," plenty in my lifetime, I think it certainly applies to the Clintons. I guess it depends on one's attitude. Some are like that. They don't care how they do it, so long as they win. Doesn't matter if they cheat, play it straight, hire another to cheat for them, etc., so long as they win, the end justifies the means.

Columnist Craig Crawford said the other day that the Clintons never interjected race into the campaign. I couldn't disagree more. The "fairy tale" line wasn't bringing race into the equation, I'll give him that. But, Hillary Clinton and especially Bill Clinton, have. Okay, so what did this following comment made by Clinton pre-South Carolina Primary have to deal with?

"As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender. They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender -- that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here."

Come on Mr. Crawford. What was Billy really trying to say and do? He was trying to make South Carolina out to be a very favorable state for Barack Obama, due to their heavy black population in the Democratic electorate, attempting to portray Obama as a black candidate, nothing more and nothing less.

Then, the day of the same Primary, Bill was asked something along the lines of, "So, what does it say about Obama that it takes two of you to bring him down?"

Clinton responded with, "Well, Jesse Jackson won here in '84 and '88. He ran a great campaign and Obama has run a great one as well."

Again, Mr. Crawford, do you seriously believe Billy Boy wasn't bringing race into the picture? He wasn't asked who Obama reminded him of or if Obama had much in common with one Jesse Jackson. No, he asked about the double-team Obama has had to face in Bill and Hillary and how does the former president respond? By comparing Obama to a rather polarizing African-American figure, again, attempting to paint the portrait that Obama is another black candidate, who only appeals to African-Americans.

Then, there were Hillary's comments in regard to Martin Luther King and Lyndon B. Johnson, when she said, "I would and I would point to the fact that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act fo 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality. The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president who said, 'We are going to do it,' and actually got it accomplished."

Right around MLK Day, when her main opponent is an African-American, why on earth would she say that? She'd have to know darn well that it'd infuriate African-Americans and perhaps push them over to Obama. Why would she do this, Mr. Crawford? I think it's because the Clintons have slowly been trying to cast Obama as a "black candidate," who can only appeal to the African-American crowd. This could play as a good short-term strategy for the Clintons, but could harm them come November.

Bill also wasn't honest in regard to Obama's Iraq War record. Obama was against it from the start. Clinton referred to it as a "fairy tale" and claimed that Barack stated in 2004 that when asked what he would've done if posed with a similar situation Bush was presented with in 2001, the Illinois Senator said he didn't know and that he now holds the same position on Iraq as the current president, George W. Bush.

What Obama actually said in '04 was this, "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case (for authorizing the war) was not made." So, while yes, Bill, the words "I don't know" were in the three sentence response by Obama, that small component doesn't give a clear depiction of the whole. Obama says that, in his perspective, the case for war wasn't made.

The Clintons also fudged with Obama's fairly recent remarks regarding Ronald Reagan and the Republicans. Bill/Hillary claimed that Barack stated that the Republicans had all the good ideas and that he was praising Reagan on his decisions and policies, when this was anything but the case.

Here's what Obama actually stated, "Reagan changed the trajectry of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally differrent path because the country was ready for it. The Republican approach I think has played itself out. I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party od ideas for a pretty long chunk of time over the last 10 or 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies, when they're being debated among the presidential candidates, it's all tax cuts. Well, we've done that, we've tried it."

Saying that a person is full of ideas and saying that they have good ideas is completely different. One can appreciate another's new ideas without actually agreeing with those ideas. In regard to Reagan, Obama wasn't saying that he agreed with the former president's policies, that he voted for him, or anything of the like. He just acknowledged the fact that Reagan was able to bring people of a different ilk together, much in the manner that Obama is campaigning to do.

Finally, at the State of the Union Address a couple nights ago, a photograph was taken of Hillary Clinton reaching out to Ted Kennedy, shaking his hand, with a giant smile on her face, as Barack Obama's back was faced toward her, while it appeared he spoke to Senator Claire McCaskill. Obama denied the alleged "snub," explaining that he was speaking to McCaskill and mentioned that the two of them (Clinton and Obama) had exchanged a wave when she entered the room. What did Hillary respond with today? "I reached my hand out. I want to be friends and I'm still reaching my hand out."

A handshake? Either Clinton saw Obama's back toward her and she took advantage of the opportunity to make him look bad, by acting gracious toward Senator Ted Kennedy with a big phony smile on her face or based on how the story was blown out of proportion by the media, she decided to capitalize on that with her statement. Either way, it's just another sly tactic by a Clinton attempting to garner support.

I almost forgot about the crying charade. Not one tear streamed down her face, but Hillary deserved a Razzie for her performance in New Hamsphire. Unfortunately, the phony show of emotion by Clinton won her some support from women. Humorously enough, though, the woman whom asked the question which sparked "emotion" by the New York Senator voted for Obama in the Primary.

What's their next move? I haven't the slightest, but I hope and pray that Obama dominates the debate tomorrow night and in a like manner, dominates Super Tuesday next week. I'm tired of the dirty politics. While their policies may drastically differ, their sly tricks, stubborness, arrogance, and overall attitudes resemble George W. Bush and there's nothing I want less than four to eight more years of a like-individual.