Yesterday’s column here, entitled “News is Not News,” was about the ego and sense of self-importance one must have to seek the office of president of the United States. It was also about the strength candidates draw from that ego and sense of self, the drive to survive and succeed.

We can’t look into the hearts or souls of candidates, and it is unlikely that the innermost of the inner circle, even, get to see so far into a candidate’s person. It’s impossible to measure sincerity or motive accurately in anyone, and because that is so, reporters and pundits can only opine, and other politicians will take license to ascribe the worst or best, depending on their party affiliation and political perspective, and never mind their own motives.

And so it was that Hillary Clinton’s assertion Barack Obama could not win the general election became a “big” news story worthy of front page coverage. A silly suggestion, and a sign of a slow news cycle and the length to which people will go to avoid dead air time on TV and boring copy in newspapers. In this instance, it was probably a little of both. I still don’t get it.

Someone else will have to tell you whether it’s true or not, but I have a story for you. When I was making a living in politics, I was doing a little speech writing, a quiet fellow at a private type writer (that will date me, won’t it) doing his research and fitting the Orator font ball into the IBM. I was told by one of the more senior writers once of a politician who took off on a young speech writer because he thought the “attack” portion of the speech was a little weak. This politician wanted to destroy his opponent, and made that very clear. . . . “Little boys aren’t enough. I want farm animals in the room with that bastard!” As I say, someone else will have to tell you whether it’s true or not, but if you want to understand how the sport of politics is played at the highest (and lowest) levels, take it to heart. It’s not for the weak among us, and it’s far worse than knowing how sausages are made.

Clinton is tough. Make no mistake about it. She understands the sport, and so does Obama, notwithstanding his “clean” appearance. I do not say that pejoratively, either. Rather, I say it with a great deal of respect for both of them. They don’t wear it on their shirt sleeve, and they don’t have to. Their willingness to mix it up, their strength, originates in their ego and their sense of self, which is where this column began. That was the news in the news.

I’m a fan of Morning Joe on MSNBC. He’s a former US Congressman, and I see that same kind of toughness in him. He’s been flirting with Clinton for a while now, and his face lights up with a smile when he watches clips of her throwing virtual political punches at Obama. He giggles, too, and his on air companions rightly tease him for it.

But he’s right. She’s tough as nails, and not afraid of anything or anyone. Like her politics or not, like her personality or not, give her that due. You’d definitely want her on your side in a fight, and she’d not be satisfied watching your back. She’d insist on being in the thick of the scrum.

I agree with Joe Scarborough. I respect tough, too. I respect it a lot more than fancy words, and as a writer, that’s saying a lot.