Consistently, I see polls that show smart people supporting Obama and, well, not stupid people, but less educated ones supporting Clinton. To wit:

Clinton continues to lead among women, whites, voters older than 45 and those without college degrees. Obama leads among men, blacks, voters with college degrees and those under 45.

Old. White. Feminists. That’s where Clinton leads. Just priceless.

After beginning to read through Obama’s book “Dreams From My Father,” I’ve really begun to put a more human face on the superstar Senator. This book makes him more knowable and I highly recommend it so far. Up to this point it has talked about race, but it isn’t preachy or guilt-ridden like some other books I’ve read.

The reason I’ve decided to blog is to address, yet again, the Clintonian brand of hypocrisy that causes me to wonder why anyone can take her seriously.

Earlier this month I went on about how Hillary remarked that this is one of the most positive campaigns she’s ever participated in. When I see that, I see head games being played with the rest of us. Not merely “do one thing and say another,” but acting as if what you say is more real than what you’ve actually done. It is very reminiscent of what we’ve seen during the Bush administration. Bush claiming the economy is great and working how it’s supposed to, yet people are losing their homes left and right while individuals and businesses with flawless credit are being flatly denied for loans they’re fully capable of repaying. Among others, far too many for me to list here while keeping on-topic.

Part of what I’ve seen from the Clinton camp has been a kind of immaturity. Thinking back to my childhood, I remember how all the petty arguments between playmates seemed to go. “You’re stupid!” “Nuh uh! You’re stupid!!” “Nuh uh!! You are!!!” One thing I’ve observed on several occasions is the Clinton campaign pulling a “Nuh uh! You are!”

Take, for instance, the blatant refusal of Hillary Clinton to distance herself from Geraldine Ferraro after her racially charged comments concerning Senator Obama. Her denunciation of those remarks was lukewarm at best. She didn’t ask Ferraro to leave, at least publicly, and only mildly criticized statements that required a strong, decisive response.

Then, through some super-human act of contortion, Ferraro turned it around to claim that the entire fiasco–over statements she made–was somehow the fault of Barack Obama. Somehow, drawing anger from people for suggesting that the only reason Obama is where he is is because he’s black means that people are being racist towards you because you’re white? How does that even make sense? How, in any way, could this be blamed on Obama?

The response from the Clinton campaign? Silence.  I wouldn’t characterize the Clintons as racists, but it’s pretty shameful that they’re still willing to exploit the issue for power.

For the tepid reaction, prominent figures from around the country made their disdain heard. Keith Olbermann and many others accused Hillary of campaigning against Obama by acting as if he were the Democrat, and she were the Republican.

What did the Clinton campaign have to say about this? “Nuh uh, he is!” It was perhaps a week ago when I saw this claim by Clinton’s campaign manager. Do they just copy what the other side says every time they want to make a comeback?

It gets me every time how Clinton gets all high and mighty over the matter of ethics. On the matter of such she says she’s been fully vetted, thus making “vetted” the latest buzzword amongst the news crowd. Because she has been fully vetted, it is argued, she is the most electable candidate. The overtones are obvious in this one: Barack Obama hasn’t been looked into like I have, and therefore has undisclosed baggage of the ethical variety.

Is that so? Senator Obama has released his tax returns and openly addressed controversies surrounding his dealings with Tony Rezko, who is under investigation for corruption charges, as well as the controversial statements of his pastor. As a response to the claim that he hasn’t been given the rubber glove treatment by the media, the Obama camp demanded that Clinton release records of her tax returns as well as a list of financiers for the Clinton library. For this, Obama is compared to Ken Starr–a name reviled by numerous Democrats–special prosecutor whose report eventually led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

So she hasn’t been fully vetted after all. Looks like she does, in fact, have something to hide. One can only wonder how much they cook the books for her tax returns and list of donors to her husbands library before finally releasing them.

The troubling part is not that she has something to hide–the Clintons have been hiding crap for years, we expect that. It’s the sheer hypocrisy of it all. How dare Barack Obama question Hillary Clinton’s integrity, yet she does the same thing by suggesting he’s got enough skeletons in his closet to cost him the general election? Then goes on record perpetuating myths against him with statements like “(he’s not a Muslim) as far as I know” yet expects us to buy her victim facade as her campaign releases unflattering photos and digs up dirt wherever they can get it, all while claiming that the media has given him a free pass?

Where does the madness end? Does anybody really buy this shit? Oh, that’s right, she’s attracted the uneducated majority. No wonder they keep falling for it. I guess I’ve answered my own question.