'tics

I don't care for Brooks at all (his equating Nancy Pelosi to Tom Delay is classic Brooks wankery), but I agree that he puts his finger on Obama's strength as a leader. If I was to vote in Iowa I'm not sure who I would pick, but it would probably be Obama. He appeals to me on a personal level. But I'm not sure if he's the best pick to force through the kind of change we need. Basically it all comes down to the question of do you believe that the right kind of leader can bring us together, heal our nation, and lead us so that we can face the challenges that lay ahead? Or is Republicanism/Conservatism beyond redemption, simply a cancer on our country which needs to be destroyed (politically, not in any 'final solution' kind of way of course) Krugman points out that that was the way FDR saw it back in the 30's, and we can agree that he got some shit done.

I will say this: If the answer to the first question is yes, and it is at least possible for our country to come together, heal, and face the challenges ahead then I do believe Obama is the man for that job. I think he possesses rare personal qualities that are suited for such a task. My fear is that it is not possible, and that Obama will walk into the arena with his arm outstretched for a handshake while the other side has their knives out for the kill.

But bottom line: In order to beat Clinton either Edwards or Obama will have to win a few early states and become the "anti-Hillary." If either of them can do that that person will have my vote. (but if it's Hillary then I'll get behind her. She's a gajillion times better than any of the Republicans)