The New York Times editorial in the wake of Hillary Clinton's rather decisive victory in the Pennsylvania primary is just silly. Clinton has presumably taken the low road to victory by questioning Obama's readiness to be President in a dangerous world. This is so because ... why? Because it's not a dangerous world? Because Obama, by promising to talk to our enemies without preconditions and suggesting that he'd invade an ally, has raised some questions about whether he understands that it is? The Times is upset that Clinton has observed that we could "obliterate" Iran if it invades Israel. Do they believe it would be better if we told them that such action would be met with stern disapproval and a prompt UN resolution?
The Times believes that the candidates should focus on the policy positions that do not distinguish them. This reminds me a bit of a federal judge who once complained because we lawyers couldn't agree on jury instructions. God bless my opponent who explained that, if the judge gave his instruction, he would win and, if he gave ours, we would win.
The editorial is of a piece with the Obama driven narrative that we should only talk about what he wants to talk about. We should accept his self-definition and ignore any information that contradicts it.
That isn't going to happen. And it shouldn't.