Obama has proved that he changes the whole conventional dynamic by which we understand which states are red and blue – a dynamic that lost us the last two presidential elections, against perhaps the worst president in U.S. history.

Clinton’s moderate success against Obama in the blue states (too close to prove anything about the general election) only proves that she can be another Kerry. Obama’s success in the red states – where in many cases he got more primary votes than all Republican candidates, combined – shows that he brings something new and exciting to the table. He can make some red states blue.

I’m glad that Clinton now regrets voting to give Bush permission to invade Iraq without U.N. Security Council approval. I forgive her. God bless her. But no one who voted that way has the kind of judgment, or value commitments, we should want in a President. First, judgment. In ’02-’03 it was obvious that Bush would invade Iraq if Congress gave him permission, and informed opinion was overwhelmingly of the view that, first, Bush’s stated reasons did not live up to any plausible standard of just cause for war, and, second, the prospects for a happy political re-orientation of Iraq, under the guns of the “Coalition of the Willing”, were very bad at best.

As for values, I’ll leave the moral aside and speak only of the legal (for now). It was a straightforward vote to give Bush authorization to violate at least two bedrock standards of international law: the standard by which at Nuremberg we tried Nazi Foreign Minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, for plotting to make aggressive war against Poland, etc., and the clearer, more recent standard of the U.N. Charter, to with the U.S. is a bound signatory (and of which the U.S. was a principle author). Quite literally, it was a vote to give the President the power to commit war crimes: specifically, under international law, designated war crimes in the special category, “Crimes Against Peace”. It would be ridiculous to downplay that vote on the ground that Clinton didn’t think he would really do it. When a national leader asks his country’s permission to commit war crimes, chances are he means to commit war crimes.

We need a candidate who can run against McCain on the Iraq War issue, in particular. Clinton will have the same problem there that Kerry had, except it will be worse. Kerry, at least, got smart and vocal about Iraq quickly. Not Clinton. Now we plebeians in the Democratic party are apparently going to select a candidate who has the high ground on Iraq AND plausibly at least as many strengths in other areas as Clinton. If that is how our vote goes – and other scenarios are unlikely at this point (as even the TV pundits all admit) – don’t take it away from us!

A parting thought. If you thought that Nader supporters hurt the party in ’00, consider how well he will do if you crown Clinton after she fails to win the plebeian vote. Wouldn’t you rather not find out?