THE Gazette's endorsement of Barack Obama, like the candidate himself, is fat on rhetoric but thin on substance.

It would be one thing if the Clintons were devoid of brilliance, eloquence or ability to impart inspiration, but they're not. Is Barack a deep thinker? Unquestionably he is, but how many times have I heard the comment that nearly everyone thought of Bill Clinton as the smartest man in the room, and more recently, that his wife is even smarter? 

When the Clintons convened a group of top business leaders in Little Rock back in 1992 after the general election, American journalists were enthralled at Bill's grasp of complex economic issues, and so the "deep thinking" had some substance behind it. He may have been the smartest man in the room, but he was not looking to make others feel small. He made them feel like participants and peers.

You termed the vote for the Iraq war resolution as "supporting the invasion," but clearly it was not a simple vote for invasion. Most supporters in the Senate, including Sen. Clinton, saw the vote as giving the president more leverage to persuade Iraq's leader to comply with weapons inspections, and 75 percent of the Senate endorsed this resolution. Even Clinton has commented that had she known how Bush would abuse those powers granted to him, she would not have voted for it.

As a senator representing New York, where the highest emotions were in play over the attack on the city, it was not difficult to understand her vote in favor of the resolution, regardless of my own feelings about it. There is nothing in the history of the Clintons' long careers that would allude to their being supportive of war. In fact, they were thought of as anti-war by most of us who are familiar with their history.

The quotes you borrowed from others' editorial endorsements do not impress. The Albuquerque Tribune's comment that it "has been a very long time since America had the leadership of someone who could disarm us of our pessimism, remind us of our roots ... and insist that we can solve America's enormous problems ..." simply ignores the fact that Bill Clinton showed us how to do that, and in fact did it, leaving office with an approval rating of 65 percent, the highest since World War II. Why do you suppose the Clintons both were among the most sought-after Democrats as speakers, illuminators and inspirers, right up until this campaign started? Bill Clinton came closer to promoting the ideals of Franklin Roosevelt than any president since him.

Rhetoric and gridlock might have been a problem during the Bush years, and certainly there was enough right-wing rhetoric during the Clinton administration, but that did not stop Democrats from shoving through an agenda that brought sustained prosperity to this country, across the board, even while balancing the federal budget and creating a budget surplus. Actions speak louder than words. Federal agencies under Clinton operated with a great deal of integrity and accountability, including those having West Virginians at the top such as Medicaid and Mine Safety and Health.

The Corpus Christi Caller-Times observed that Americans are "sick of leadership that depends on division and demonizing. ... A recession looms, Americans are worried about their jobs, their pensions, and their children's education." This is obviously an indictment of the past 50 years of Republican behavior, but I don't see much bearing on how the Clintons performed, neither the divisiveness nor the demonizing, not the lack of attention to the basic issues affecting this country. Maybe the newspaper in Corpus Christi was asleep during the 1990s, but many Americans were not.

And finally, the Gazette has raised an obvious red herring, quoting the Iowa State Daily that Obama represents a "change of family. Two families have run the country for the past 20 years ... unhealthy to the country's image to the rest of the world as a democracy." Let's not forget that Americans elected FDR to four terms as president. They were clearly not tired of the Roosevelt legacy, still a work in progress at the time of this great leader's death. Drawing any kind of comparison between the Clinton "family" and the Bush "family" is just plain ignorant. And has the Gazette looked into any sort of polls regarding how the rest of the world views the Clintons? I think you would find it hard to support the claims of the Iowa State Daily.

You wrap up your editorial with a quote from Jay Rockefeller, falling back again on hanging the endorsement on a highly emotional Senate vote, which is admittedly the single greatest issue in this entire campaign. But Obama, who wasn't present when that vote was made, will have to lead this country's military establishment no matter what else he will need to do, and there is a great deal of cause to be concerned about how he will perform if elected. Hillary Clinton's performance on the Senate Armed Services Committee demonstrates her deep desire to know everything necessary to lead this country in difficult, even dangerous, times.

Harmon is a former Gazette copy editor, now a state official against nicotine addiction.

THE Gazette's endorsement of Barack Obama, like the candidate himself, is fat on rhetoric but thin on substance.

It would be one thing if the Clintons were devoid of brilliance, eloquence or ability to impart inspiration, but they're not. Is Barack a deep thinker? Unquestionably he is, but how many times have I heard the comment that nearly everyone thought of Bill Clinton as the smartest man in the room, and more recently, that his wife is even smarter? 

When the Clintons convened a group of top business leaders in Little Rock back in 1992 after the general election, American journalists were enthralled at Bill's grasp of complex economic issues, and so the "deep thinking" had some substance behind it. He may have been the smartest man in the room, but he was not looking to make others feel small. He made them feel like participants and peers.

You termed the vote for the Iraq war resolution as "supporting the invasion," but clearly it was not a simple vote for invasion. Most supporters in the Senate, including Sen. Clinton, saw the vote as giving the president more leverage to persuade Iraq's leader to comply with weapons inspections, and 75 percent of the Senate endorsed this resolution. Even Clinton has commented that had she known how Bush would abuse those powers granted to him, she would not have voted for it.

As a senator representing New York, where the highest emotions were in play over the attack on the city, it was not difficult to understand her vote in favor of the resolution, regardless of my own feelings about it. There is nothing in the history of the Clintons' long careers that would allude to their being supportive of war. In fact, they were thought of as anti-war by most of us who are familiar with their history.

The quotes you borrowed from others' editorial endorsements do not impress. The Albuquerque Tribune's comment that it "has been a very long time since America had the leadership of someone who could disarm us of our pessimism, remind us of our roots ... and insist that we can solve America's enormous problems ..." simply ignores the fact that Bill Clinton showed us how to do that, and in fact did it, leaving office with an approval rating of 65 percent, the highest since World War II. Why do you suppose the Clintons both were among the most sought-after Democrats as speakers, illuminators and inspirers, right up until this campaign started? Bill Clinton came closer to promoting the ideals of Franklin Roosevelt than any president since him.

Rhetoric and gridlock might have been a problem during the Bush years, and certainly there was enough right-wing rhetoric during the Clinton administration, but that did not stop Democrats from shoving through an agenda that brought sustained prosperity to this country, across the board, even while balancing the federal budget and creating a budget surplus. Actions speak louder than words. Federal agencies under Clinton operated with a great deal of integrity and accountability, including those having West Virginians at the top such as Medicaid and Mine Safety and Health.

The Corpus Christi Caller-Times observed that Americans are "sick of leadership that depends on division and demonizing. ... A recession looms, Americans are worried about their jobs, their pensions, and their children's education." This is obviously an indictment of the past 50 years of Republican behavior, but I don't see much bearing on how the Clintons performed, neither the divisiveness nor the demonizing, not the lack of attention to the basic issues affecting this country. Maybe the newspaper in Corpus Christi was asleep during the 1990s, but many Americans were not.

And finally, the Gazette has raised an obvious red herring, quoting the Iowa State Daily that Obama represents a "change of family. Two families have run the country for the past 20 years ... unhealthy to the country's image to the rest of the world as a democracy." Let's not forget that Americans elected FDR to four terms as president. They were clearly not tired of the Roosevelt legacy, still a work in progress at the time of this great leader's death. Drawing any kind of comparison between the Clinton "family" and the Bush "family" is just plain ignorant. And has the Gazette looked into any sort of polls regarding how the rest of the world views the Clintons? I think you would find it hard to support the claims of the Iowa State Daily.

You wrap up your editorial with a quote from Jay Rockefeller, falling back again on hanging the endorsement on a highly emotional Senate vote, which is admittedly the single greatest issue in this entire campaign. But Obama, who wasn't present when that vote was made, will have to lead this country's military establishment no matter what else he will need to do, and there is a great deal of cause to be concerned about how he will perform if elected. Hillary Clinton's performance on the Senate Armed Services Committee demonstrates her deep desire to know everything necessary to lead this country in difficult, even dangerous, times.

Harmon is a former Gazette copy editor, now a state official against nicotine addiction.