As the democratic primary season drags on, we know the show by heart. It's experience vs. change. But I can't believe I'm about to do this - I`m going to defend Hillary Clinton.

Why? Because when the New York Times viciously attacks someone in an editorial - that means that person must be doing something right. It's the enemy of my enemy theory that works in politics as well as the salad bar at the Olive Garden.

Here's the bottom line. Barack Obama is about change. But what is that change? It's not substance, it's style. Fact is, not a single idea Barack has bandied about is new - he's every bit as liberal as Ted Kennedy on a bender- and his ideology is in lockstep with the most disastrous progressive thinking of the last 20 years. Meaning, Obama is praising stuff that doesn't work and never has.

Hilary knows this, but has no idea how to explain it without the Obamites coming down on her. So she's screwed. She might actually be a fairly mediocre president, but it's not going to happen, because she's the old crone at Cinderella's ball. And it's Obama's foot that fits the slipper.

This is not to say Barack doesn't believe in change. For him, change means "pick me." And that's it. There are no revolutionary ideas, or inspirational thoughts. He`s just an extremely charming man who wants to be president. Is that enough? Please let me know. I'll be out back tending to my roses. They cover the graves.