What actually matters, however, is the substance of his policies and record, and on that count he's clearly superior to Clinton (especially on foreign policy)...

Really? As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations' Subcommittee on Europe, Obama has held zero hearings. OTOH, the House Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe is having constant hearings.

Steve Clemons, himself a former senate aide to Jeff Bingaman:

Given the stress NATO is experiencing today on many fronts -- from the question of Europe's evolving security identity, to NATO's deployments in Afghanistan, to the evolving question of how to deal with Russia, Kosovo, and other common challenges -- it seems inconceivable that Senator Obama would not want to highlight important policy concerns by way of hearings.

Still think he's better?

Why do I get the feeling that Obama is gonna be Bill (Clinton that is) all over again? Really charismatic, gets everybody's hopes up, and then plays it safe.

Obviously, that's a bit unfair to Clinton, who had to deal with a Republican hate machine all the time.

But still: Obama seems too willing to settle for less on health care and has been far too willing to parrot GOP talking points on Social Security. That's something to be concerned with.

Sorry, Scott, the Krug-Man is right on. You can't adopt the Repub's language (social security, etc.) and just talk like you will transcend the mud machine. It is, naive at best.

Given that there seem to be few real substantial policy disagreements between Clinton and Obama on foreign policy issues, it's hard to see why he seems so much better as Scott argues here. I think the point that any foreign policy we get from a Democrat will be better than Bush's is the real key here, though none of the big three, I think, will be as bold or as likely to shake things up as some progressives would like.

Good grief, Scott. If there's one thing Hillary is likely to be far, far better at than any of the alternatives it's dealing with Congressional Republicans.

What do you think she's beend doing for the last 7 years in the Senate?

Hillary, like Teddy Kennedy, generates hostility from right-wing pundits and in GOP direct mail fund-raising, not from the vast majority of actual GOP politicians, which whom she works actually a little too well for my comfort.

This is a singularly blinkered post.

Nice try.

Clinton's tenure in the Senate undermines the core of your argument.

"What actually matters, however, is the substance of his policies and record, and on that count he's clearly superior to Clinton (especially on foreign policy)"

Haha. This is the funniest thing I have heard all day! I nearly fell off my seat. Some people can't stop with the jokes....

"Given that she generates more hostility from the GOP"

This is awfully naive of you.

Do you honestly believe the GOP and the Right Wing Noise Machine will be kinder to Obama than they were to the Clintons?

Do you think they would have been kinder to Gore or Kerry?

Obama cultists seem to think their candidate is some kind of a Messiah. They believe the day he becomes president the GOP will cooperate and the Right Wing Noise Machien will shut down.

Paul Krugman is right. Obama and his supporters are naive.

Every time we have had a progressive agenda implemented there has been a divisive bitter fight in this country, from the New Deal to civil rights. It is no different now.

Scott, normally I agree with you, but I think you're wrong, and badly so, in this analysis: "I don't think that Obama's rhetoric about transcending old politics tells us much about how he'll actually govern. Bush in 2000, after all, didn't campaign as a 50%+1 conservative who would increase party polarization in Congress, but that's what he did."

Obama's rhetoric tells us that he's quite comfortable accepting GOP talking points, bashing liberals in the hopes of impressing moderates, accusing liberals of being a bigger problem in today's political climate than conservatives (no, you don't have to be a Clinton to triangulate; look who Obama chooses to attack), and papering over problems *caused* by conservatives *and* their moderate enablers.

Also, Bush ran as an above-the-fray stereotype-breaker, as Obama's trying to do, but Bush was *able* to run against the bitter partisan wars *because* the most bitter partisans were the conservative Clinton-hating assholes and their allies in the media, and when Bush won, *those* people had *nothing* to complain about, so of *course* they weren't bitter partisan assholes making things awkward (and Democrats, always giving themselves too much credit for too little effect, said, "Wow, bitter partisan assholes? If they were talking about us, we'd better show them we don't have to be like that!" and promptly disarmed, unilaterally and wholeheartedly).

So sure, Obama can run against bitter partisan assholes, except that (1) it's a Republican frame designed to sabotage Democrats -- which, Scott, dovetails quite neatly with other things Obama's said lately, (2) it won't work for him the way it worked for Bush, because the dynamics are not the same in the two parties, and (3) it suggests a certain profound ignorance of the way things will work. If Obama truly expects to overcome partisanship through mere rhetoric, he's going to have one hell of a fucking rude wake-up call on January 21, 2009, when he realizes that *he* can disdain political weapons and tools (much like his whining about not liking to use procedural maneuvers to fight in the Senate; you're in politics, dude, get used to it), but his opponents aren't so naive or stupid as to disarm themselves.

Republicans and conservatives are good at some things, but pissing away political power is one of the few things, if not the only thing, Democrats beat them at every fucking time.

(oh, and your captcha thing still sucks at displaying text and recognizing when people type it)

I am not impressed with Obama's stupidity.

Krugman, it is true, seems like a poor candidate for an attack; he's like an economizing teddy bear with that beard. However. The attack that I read was not personal, and there's little in it but the campaign's drawing attention to a tone-shift (which, if I can weigh in, is the worse type of political flip-flopping, because it doesn't seem quite like flip-flopping at all).

To the polarizing nature of HRC ... I recognize that Beltway wisdom is often misguided, and I would welcome any serious argument to the contrary, but I cannot imagine that if HRC is nominated and eventually elected, that democrats the nastiest, mud-slingingest, filibusteringest (granted, not too much will change), time in recent history.

I would prefer Obama, but I like HRC and will go to war for her if she is nominated. But make no mistake, it will be war; it's going to be bloody.

I agree with Bob, which is why I'm for Hillary. Say what you want about the Clintons, but they know how to beat Republicans, and, frankly, defeating Republicans is the major issue of our time.