"Because I said so!"

When the political hot air starts to blow, I am again reminded of the way vast areas of the populace seem thrilled to suspend disbelief and accept the most specious arguments as wisdom.

Senator Obama, who is attempting the closest thing to a civil campaign seen in recent decades, is charged with being unpatriotic based on a lapel pin and a photo of him singing along with the national anthem while Governor Richardson seems to be trying to locate the source of the music and Senator Clinton is posing with her eyes firmly fixed on the camera. So why is it that nobody asks what the other two are doing?

After a set of elections last night that change virtually nothing in terms of delegate numbers, Senator Clinton, who had been chanting "it's not the number of states, it's the number of delegates" through 11 straight defeats, is suddenly making the rounds of the TV programs claiming a major victory.

Why is it that the two "traditional" candidates are allowed to get away with lines of reasoning that would give the Mad Hatter a headache?

Why does no one question the recent push by Limbaugh, Coulter, and their ilk for Republicans to vote for Senator Clinton upcoming primaries? At least when the RNC cycled money to the Kerry campaign four years ago, they kept it quiet until the least electable candidate in the primary pack could be locked into the target position. These days, it passes for shrewd strategy. We know this because Limbaugh, Coulter, et al. have told us so.

The Clinton victories in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island are being credited, in great part, to her insistence that Senator Obama is not sufficiently qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. The Constitution spells out the qualification for assuming that title -- get elected President. But that "who is ready when the phone rings?" advert seems to have resonated with people who should know better. Why is she qualified? Because she told us so.

Senator Clinton may get the nomination. Her message, image, and "voice" change with each new day (a point her campaign seems to think it a good thing), and adding the negatives for herself and her husband yields what appears to be a disastrous total, but she may get nominated. Following that, the Democrats get to continue their insistence on voluntary internal bleeding while the Republicans coast to victory. Why do so many Democrats think this is a good thing? Nominatable she may be, but electable?

Yes, I know that "nominatable" is not a word that is used much, but it is a word; because I said so.