It's supposed to be magnaminity - not idiocity - in victory

RM: Hillary's record on foreign policy shows she favored intervention in Bosnia, regime change in Iraq, tough sanctions to stop Iran and derail Hamas. I think your comparison with Obama's record does not hold up. It is clear from the record Obama waited 11 months before rejecting removing Saddam. His track record on vets is clear and he hardly has the voting record of Hillary. He voted present how many times? He missed how many important votes? As far as flip-flopping just go back and read what Obama said about Iran in 2004 or recent speeches to AIPAC. His comments on Pakistan? His "talking" to Iran in light of recent actions and speeches by Iranian leaders. No wonder Kucinich will endorse Obama. There is nothing worse than a clever speaker with flowery words bullshitting his way to the White House. Simon nails it and I too will have to give more to Hillary. Not because she is fantastic, but that I would rather see the Clinton referendum live, the actual move to center that worked with Republicans, than watch Obambi slip his way to President and then pander (yep) to the Left and furthers our decline. I don't expect he will be like JFK and the period we are fast facing is as great a turning point in Western history.

Simon: Is this obsessing, or were you and I right that now is the time to pull out the stops? You know I gave Obama plenty of time to meet expectations but I don't need a cars salesman to make me feel good. I need a car that can travel the rough road ahead. How has it come to where a candidate clearly more to the Left of Hillary enjoys the image of a man who can work/compromise with the opposition? Isn't his behavior on immigration a refutation of this? Aren?t Susan Rice?s words that we need a janitor more of the same blame game? And how righteous is it for a man who waited almost a year to blast Iraq now says he opposed it from the start? How righteous is it for a person to claim foreign policy smarts and propose invading Pakistan and that Iraq was the greatest mistake in US history (and that the surge did not work and that Iraq is lost?). How righteous is it for Obama to blast others for lobby connections or talk about civility while calling Hillary a liar? To point these things out now seems prudent given the cascade effect that will come from an Obama victory in NH. Media plays a big role in this mess and lets Obama get away with the idea of change when in fact, the Clintons changed the Party. Obama has neither the record of calling for bipartisan change nor the experience and record to suppose he could do it better than the Clintons. His underlying campaign has been pandering to the base that does not want to compromise on ideology and implying the Clinton referendum wasn't important change that needs to be improved upon by the very individuals who first got that New Democrat ball rolling.

Tully: Perhaps you could explain to me why my past posts were not well intentioned (versus obsessive) given the spin in media today. Wouldn't an Obama victory in NH spell fatal trouble for Hillary? You seem to dismiss the urgency of my posts and did not build upon the many issues media fails to pick up on (Present votes, vets, 2004 declarations etc.). Am I right in assuming you see no present threat that in short order Obama could become the nominee? Or is that what you hope, believing as many do, Hillary is a greater threat to a Republican candidate down the road? I am not ascribing, just asking for clarification. Should I suggest that having Obama snort up lines after Hillary got thrown out by Tammy is a bit much (not that you added that post)? As they say, there is always some truth to humor.

On a day when Huckabee became the GOP front runner it's Obama you think needs to be stopped?

I'll go further and say both of them need to be stopped. Heck, I will support Hillary if I have to. If Huckabee and the evangelical wing wins the nomination, I am done with the GOP. I will vote for Hillary over Huckabee. Obama against Huckabee would be my GOP version of the flee to Canada ticket (as a bunch of Dems threatened to do in 2004).

To me, Huckabee is a 100% certain loser in the general election and Obama would be a disaster for this country with his wide eye idealism. When I feel like I could do a better job as President than what won last night, this country is in trouble.

Michael, I don't know how many times we have to have this debate before it sinks in. The problem I have with him isn't his "deliberate use of wedge issues, the base strategy, the Atwater-Rove school of politics." The problem I have with him is that he does that while disingenuously (or moronically) claiming to be using a "strategy of conciliation." The problem I have with him is that he claims to be "pursuing a centrist, conciliatory strategy" while substantively putting forward exactly the same no-compromises liberal cant as his opponents. He isn't a centrist, Michael, he just isn't - once you look behind the rhetoric, there isn't a shred of evidence that he even knows that there's another side to compromise with. What possible basis could one rest the claims that you make (and that he makes) that he's a conciliator, a compromisor, a centrist?

His rhetoric doesn't match up with his substance. At that's (in the main) what's so gratingly objectionable about him compared to other candidates. He makes Hillary look honest and forthright.

On a day when Huckabee became the GOP front runner it's Obama you think needs to be stopped?

Well, first, Huckabee isn't the GOP frontrunner. He won Iowa, and I'm betting that's the high-watermark of his campaign ) I'd bet he'll be destroyed in New Hampshire, coming in behind McCain and Romney. But even accepting your framing, I've made my view of Huckabee pretty clear, but if it's Huckabee vs. Obama, I won't just hold my nose and vote for Huckabee, I'll hold my nose and support and campaign for him. Whatever else you can say about Huckabee, he's honest and he knows himself. Obama either knows himself and is doing his best to hide it (which is bad) or doesn't know himself (which is worse).

Take an issue like abortion. Yes, there are different points of view. There's also a big area of overlap in the middle where people feel distaste for the frequency of abortion, suspect that nevertheless it needs to be legal in some circumstances, but want some limits. A politician can accent the consensus and perhaps take some useful actions. Or he can play to the extremes -- abortion is murder, or hands off my body -- and turn out his base in the election. It's a choice between doing the people's business and winning at all costs.

Nothing in Obama's rhetoric gives even the faintest indication that he wants to move to a consensus position on abortion, one that takes into account that most people want to see partial birth abortion stopped, and clear majorities want to see common-sense regulations like parental notification laws and a prohibition on border-running. Compromise begins with overruling Roe-Casey. As long as those cases remain functionally the law of the land, there isn't a compromise - there's the abortion-on-demand status quo. Don't be fooled by thinking that because Obama's for the status quo that the status quo is the middle ground! The status quo is an illegitimate judicial imposition of one side that entirely shuts out the other side.

On the war there's a great big middle out there where people think it was probably a mistake, definitely mishandled, but that nevertheless we broke it so we bought it and we can't just run for the exit. Obama plays to that middle.

No he doesn't. Obama is in the cut and run group.

~s

"When someone says their heart needs lifting, don't ask how come, ask how high."

Again you characterize Obama as pursuing a centrist concilatory strategy which is nonsense. Obama before 2004 had the beginning of this image, but he has not taken that road despite his softer oratory tone. Big deal, I could very sweetly tell you your an ass and that would make my words less biting? I can nicely call one a liar too. Big friggin deal. Content dude, content...The content of his words simply do not support your view. And Kucinich backs Obama.

Huckabee? I give money to the Democrats and I think Obama will lose in a general election for all the reasons I have already posted. Sure, we'll enjoy more unity under the Obama Referendum. I think Simon might prefer a Hillary to an Obama if the Democratic swing is too great for any Republican to defeat, so I understand his sentiment. Already numerous Republicans seemed relieved by the idea they will face Obama and not Hillary. Just look at the free ride Fox gives Obama or consider Rush's remarks.

The fireworks will begin this weekend, I'm sure;

Clinton's aides say her campaign will renew its scrutiny of Obama's comparatively thin record and lack of foreign policy experience, questioning whether he is ready to lead in a dangerous world.

They will also try to paint him as something of a phony - someone whose lofty rhetoric isn't born out in his own public record. They point to his votes in the Senate to fund the Iraq war even as he tried to position himself as the strongest anti-war candidate in the field.

"He talks about change but has no real record of making change," said Mark Penn, the Clinton campaign's pollster and senior strategist. CQ Politics

I have a feeling NH will be different for both Huckabee and Obama....