Hillary Clinton was guilty of seriously flawed judgment, likely driven by the same misguided political advice that caused John Edwards to make the same mistake. Both of them, I think, actually believed that the inspectors would first be allowed to determine whether or not Saddam still had WMDs. Several other Democrats fell into the same trap.

I’m not aware of any tragic mistakes Obama has been guilty of, nor do the comments of people who seem to know him suggest to me that he has the kind of hubris that would lead to such tragic mistakes. Having a big ego is not the same as being infected with hubris. One can have a big ego, and still have the capacity for sound reasoning. Hubris wipes that out.

I agree that Hillary is the most qualified, best prepared, most knowledgeable candidate of the entire group, but Obama is not the lightweight some of the commentary seems to suggest. I’m actually in Margaret Cho’s corner on this one.

Really? In the current political environment you think Barack Obama’s the one who’s full of himself?

Pardon me if I ask, Huh?

Before reading on, please understand that I criticize Obama with great hesitation, knowing that if he wins the primary he will certainly have my support, and my vote, against the Shrub-alike McCain. (The fact that Michelle Obama could not say the same yesterday about Hillary Clinton in response to a direct question is a disgrace and reveals her true Lady Macbeth-like motivations.)

Now let’s discuss Obama and the bases for your endoresement.

When you say that Obama’s health care plan is more “fleshed out” than Clinton’s, are you referring to the fact that, unlike Clinton’s mandate, Obama’s plan relies on the fanciful notion that he can make health insurance so attractive that everyone in the country will line up to buy it and no one, whether out of a feeling of invincibility or apathy, will choose to throw caution to the wind and wind up in the emergency room on everyone else’s dime? At the LA debate, Obama simply shrugged off — as he has a tendency to do with pesky details — studies showing that the there could be as many as 15 million of these irresponsible people under his plan. He alslo suggested as a possible solution, that these folks could be forced to pay back premiums when they get hurt. Actuarial science, and fundamental logic be damned, I’m am in the market for any insurance policy I can get that only makes me pay premiums when and if I have a claim. I’m pretty sure I’ll save a bundle. Other than this critical difference with respect to a mandate, Obama’s and Clinton’s health care plans are nearly identical. So, is this what makes Obama’s plan more fleshed out?

Now, on to the war. I certainly agree with you that the war is not a good issue for Clinton. She made a huge mistake and she knows it. I tend to think she has apologized for it in as direct of a manner as possible in a political climate that frowns on acknowledging any true failures, but that is not enough and it does not change the fact that it was a huge mistake. Where I guess you and I disagree on is the notion that Obama would have done any differently in Clinton’s shoes. Obama’s much lauded (mostly by him) stance against the war “from the beginning” is about as meaningful as the votes cast against the war in various city counsels and probably a fair number of high school student bodies. The Illinois State Senate was not asked to authorize the war and that’s where Obama was when the real voting — albeit critically misguided and fraudulently-induced voting — was going on in the US Congress.

Would Obama really have voted against the war if he had been in the US Senate at the time, like Clinton was? Lord knows his hubris would never let him even entertain the notion now, but let’s look at a few facts that leave me skeptical. First, Obama is certainly no liberal, Kucinich-like dove when it comes to war (which I must confess, I am). He’s a centrist who talks of the use of military force is less than absolute-last-resort type terms. Second, he prides himself on his ability to work accross party lines, which suggests an unwillingness to stand alone as a voice of strident dissent against a seemingly overwhelming furror coming not only from Republicans, but from many Democrats as well. Third, in his limited time in the US Senate, Obama has not exactly taken up putting an end to the war as his defining issue — no firery speeches on the Senate floor about stopping needless bloodshed in morally bereft, profit-driven sham. He’s been to busy with self-ritious ethics reform legislation seemingly designed for the sole purpose of defining himself as a “voice of change from the status quo” in Washington.

So, while I am troubled by Clinton’s grave mistake on the war — allowing herself to be defrauded and pressured to toe the evil line of evil people — I am hopeful that she has learned from this mistake, as well as she has learned from all of the positive legislative and executive experience she has had (you know, doing the kind of work that actually qualifies one for the job she and Obama are seeking). I am less certain that Obama has yet had the opportunity, or the humility, to learn what he needs to know to be an effective president. I guess he’s long on a charisma that many find compelling, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but he’s awful short on the nitty-gritty details of actually being president as opposed to winning the presidency. The emperor (a view of Obama seemingly shared by the Obamamaniacs and Obama himself), I fear, has no clothes.

We need to get back to understanding the proper role of the military, which is, first and foremost, to defend the country. Aside from that primary goal, the only other legitimate use of military force is — in very, very limited circumstances — to enforce international law or to live up to international treaty obligations of the United States.

McCain, though, seems to be too willing to use the military as an implement of foreign policy strategy … and that’s just plain dangerous. And, I might add, it’s a betrayal of the President’s obligations to the troops … the principle obligation being to never, ever send them into combat without an ironclad justification.

It’s not too late, John!

I think at this point what is more important than which Democrat we vote for is how hard we work to help elect the Democratic candidate in the generally election. There is nothing I would love better than to bury John McCain’s pseudo-moderate, pseudo-maverick (Chuck Hagel he ain’t), warmonger ass.

There is no excuse for the Democrats not winning in November. Enough people finally understand the msm for the lazy, journalistically shallow, create-a-controversy opportunists the majority of them, especially the upper echelon ones, are, so I don’t think they can idiotically carry the water for the swiftboaters the way they did in ‘04, and as they showed they want to in ‘08, mindless egotistical shitheads that they so often are (yes, I also mean you, Mr. Broder, in your case because your view of yourself as a wise elder is elevated so far above the reality that I think the biggest favor you could do America is get a clue - I will be the first to congratulate you if you do).