Your logic behind needing to write about the Democratic presidential candidates is amusing. I suppose if you focus narrowly on the presidential race, your approach is justifiable. Of course, there are no situations in South and Central Americas or Africa or Palestine or China or Indonesia or Russia or in the U.S. that might provide fertile grounds for intelligent analysis.
You already made good editorial comments on world energy and food supply, so there would not be any reason to do any follow-up. I suppose it would not be worth your time to comment on the incomplete facts used in the biofuel op-ed, especially about ethanol. Perhaps it is also not worth your time to comment on the editorial cartoon of Bruce Tinsley (Mallard Filmore) about compact fluorescents, which is based on what National Geographic calls "junk science."
So perhaps you thought that one more crack at the Democrats would help sway the vast number of Democrats in your reading area to vote Republican. This in a county where Mother Teresa running as a Democrat would have trouble beating any Republican - even Attila the Hun, Vlad the Impaler, Jack the Ripper. Your motivation is fairly clearly not this.
Perhaps you breathed too many fumes while riding your motorcycle. This, of course, would explain why you sometimes make some fairly silly editorial comments, while at other times make excellent sense. So I guess I will keep this as a possible reason for your rants.
However, I think I have found your real motivation. In your editorial, you comment that Hillary has to win this time because she would be 68 the next time she could run and that would be "too late for her."
Now, this could be taken to be a definite sexist remark - if you think that John McCain, who is now 71, would make a good president, even though he would be beyond the "too late" years for Hillary. Now there is no reason to think you are sexist. Even your most far-out editorials never imply this.
So this leaves me with only one other interpretation. You don't think John McCain is a reasonable Republican presidential candidate because he is too old. I am his age and can think of a number of reasons why I would not want to run for president. However, many of these reasons would have been true when I was 41 or 51 or 61. Admitting to age discrimination must be painful for you, and that leads to your fixation with the Democratic race since I suspect you feel one of the Democrats will be the next president. I sympathize with you since I felt the same way about Bush and have seen what that voting mistake did for our country and the world.
So I will forgive you since writing an editorial column is cathartic for your fixation. Perhaps you, Ann, Michael and Rush should get together and have a good cry. That too would be good for your souls.
