What does it all mean?

For those in the Clinton camp who are planning their grand Obama rout, one would be well advised to wait. Senator Clinton is, to borrow a term from The Simpsons' Krusty the Clown, death; a long, slow painful death.

If one goes in search of grand divergence in policy between Clinton and Obama, there is none. The two candidates parallel like a freeway. The disparity in the two is better related in the form of approach.

Mrs. Clinton fails in the same way that Air America did. She articulates her grand solutions in terms of policy with the opinions of D-list bureaucrats. Air America died from trying to provide a commercial version of NPR; we are supposed to swallow a remedy before were are given a diagnosis.

Obama, however, takes his lessons from success. The success of progressives in this election cycle owes less to ideas than it does to presentation. Conservative discourse has been successful because it is good radio. Obama has been able to connect his agenda to the vast population in the middle because he has been able to express his diagnosis with a clear regimen for cure.

Mrs Clinton, the middle regrets to inform you that your candidacy, like Generalissimo Francisco Franco, is still dead.

In primaries open to all comers in Texas and Ohio the Clinton campaign catches fire after Limbaugh and Coulter encourage cross-aisle voting? Wow, Santa came early to Chappaqua! There is no way for a rational person to be convinced that somebody from the Conservative side was not up to didos in those two primaries.

The belief that Clinton managed to reconnect in light of Limbaugh's encouragement is at best disingenuous. Clinton's tacit acceptance is evidence of ambition that is less concerned with the future of her party and her country than it is of self-aggrandizement and the horrible neediness of someone who must win at all costs.

One accepts that Mrs. Clinton suffered with her husband's philandering. One is also aware that she is also willing to surrender her dignity as a trade for access to political power, with a frantic thirst for authority. There are terms from the gutter to describe a similar quid pro quo re dignity for position.

Fundamentally, the most disturbing part of the discussion is that while Clinton was pressuring Senator Obama for a denunciation of Farrakhan, she made no corresponding point about Limbaugh. While Limbaugh is a very talented entertainer and pundit, he has been more harmful to the interests of progressives and Democrats than he could have been as an overt bigot. Indeed, being ostensibly tolerant, Limbaugh brings the authority of reason.

This raises a huge question of integrity that has perennially haunted the Clintons. Hillary has been significantly less than forthcoming in the realm of disclosure and transparency. While she thrusts an accusatory finger at Obama's relationship with Tony Rezko in Illinois, we are supposed to forget Whitewater, Travelgate, the Rose Law Firm, Vince Foster, the board of Wal Mart, and the Chinese.

There is no question that Obama's relationship with Rezko is hinky, but Senator Clinton has zero wiggle room when it comes to questions of integrity. She does not need to open this keg of rattlesnakes. Hillary is not Baptist enough to come out of this one without getting bit...Huckabee maybe, but not Hillary. She's a Methodist.

Moving to the point of integrity, what happens when John McCain asks the same questions? At the moment when Hillary Clinton hems and haws about a question of her integrity, McCain only has to show the famous film where he refuses liberty from the Hanoi Hilton until all of the captives are released. Game, set, match, tournament, and the next four years go to John McCain.

McCain has much more authority on matters of national security compared to a similar voting record to Clinton's. What she brings to the table is a complete lack of credential on military matters, and the double whammy of annoying the bases of both parties. What a disaster.

Then, as discussed earlier, the Clinton campaign brings the stink of illegitimacy as a nominee. That is all the Democratic party needs, another generation of disillusioned young voters now susceptible to Republican rhetoric, compounded with an African-American constituency under the impression of being disenfranchised. This stinks like a truckload of mercury-tainted tuna jackknifed on the Jersey Turnpike in high summer.

On the economy, Clinton does not fare any better. Love NAFTA or hate it, she seems to be curiously absent when it comes to her having any role. Here exists yet another vacilation of political expediency. The voter is expected to count Mrs. Clinton's tenure as first lady as experience, except that she has no accountability for any decisions made between 1993 and 2001. If this makes any sense to anyone, medication is available to treat Schizophrenia and Psychosis these days.

The Clinton campaign is expecting voters to disregard the disconnects between the record-and the record. While Obama does not have the same amount of time in public service as Mrs. Clinton, he does offer an advantage of consistency in rhetoric and remarkable skill as a communicator and motivator. Obama is right to question Clinton's judgement, as it seems diaphanous and capricious in the extreme.

A Clinton nomination will give votes to the most consistent Democrat on the ballot.

John McCain of Arizona.

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY 1925-2008

With sadness one notes upon the passing of Mr. Buckley last week. He was not only the godfather of the Conservative movement that brought Reagan to power, he was also a role model for those of us who endeavor to inform and entertain through the written word.

From God and Man at Yale, through National Review and a litany of novels and newspaper columns, Buckley challenged and shaped the discourse of two generations.

Whether or not one agreed with Buckley, he was emblematic of the witty and genteel debate that harks to the traditions of British Parliament, in a uniquely American tableau. His urbane charisma and mastery of language brought debate up to approach his level, as opposed to the modern form that relies primarily upon volume and demagoguery in search of the lowest common denominator.

While his detractors happily derided him as a pompous purveyor of polysyllabic political punditry, he earned reverential treatment from his opponents. An epicurean of language and thought, Buckley was a worthy and powerful contributor to the pantheon of American letters, whose gifts will be sorely missed.