Folks, let's face it, this is what it's come to. The next four months will be critical to the future of the democratic party. The Hillary campaign slash and burn tactics are raising a true risk of long term division in the party.

The pundits at CNN usually tick me off but I have to give them credit for something they said tonight. David Gergen was telling a story of how Obama went to a senior Democrat when he decided he was running for advice. The Democrat told him, and I paraphrase.

"Barak, we know you can take a punch. But can you throw a punch?"

I am always fascinated by the "groupthink" dynamics present in the media. Where do they come from, how do they grow, why do they stick, and how come journalists who are supposed to demonstrate a minimum of critical thinking completely give up to intellectual laziness and abandon their objectivety to blindly repeat the latest conventional knowledge.

I think the main reason Obama won tonight is that once again, while Hillary spewed out a series of consecutive talking points very often without structure, Obama was able to methodically establish his vision. On several occasions, he was able to lay out how his campaign is bottom up, how putting forward plans is pointless if you don't gain the political capital to make things happen.

In addition, while her entire focus in the last week has been to try to question his competency and credibility, he showed great master of all topics and demonstrated he is substance, in addition to style. Barack nailed it tonight and this bodes well for Texas and Ohio.

OK, since the truce seems to have been broken, and the Clinton camp is out there with their pseudo fact-check brigades, let me chime in on the one issue that matters the most in this case: the candidates position on the war.

First of all, let me issue a disclaimer: I intend to vote Obama. If he is beaten, I will vote for Hillary.

Bill and Hillary may want to cast some doubt on Obama's consistency on the war but make no mistake about it, this is the most important point of differentiation in this primary season, and the Barak camp should welcome the opportunity Bill has given them. I am no political consultant but I would think this is an issue Obama should pound again and again. Clinton wants to revisit everyone's position on the war, let's revisit it, including Clinton's vote that gave Bush the freedom to invade Irak.

This was at best a dumb vote - which should quiet down all claims that she is the most qualified and most ready candidate for the white house - and at worst a very cynical and cowardly political calculation that has resulted in thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousand of Iraqi lives being lost.  

I know this is not going to go well here. But isn't it time (or won't it be time soon) to admit that Edwards is out of the picture? OK, OK, I'll be a little more patient and give you until South Carolina, but fact is that he seems to be dropping slowly. He hasn't done all that great during the debates and he is definitely an afterthought for most, except a core group of irreductibles.

The Clinton campaign is clearly nervous and seems to be looking everyday for a new theme to throw at Obama. The latest - developed at the outset of the Nevada debate - is the notion that Obama would somehow not be organized enough to run the government.

Let me make this clear. I still have a great deal of respect for Hillary. She is smart, competent, tough, and has shown she is a very solid debater. Let me also make clear that I would definitely get a kick of seing the first woman president of the United States. Let me finally make clear that I grew up politically with Bill Clinton. In my life, I don't think I ever felt as much hope and excitement as when Bill Clinton was elected. I never turned on him, throughout his two terms and I have always felt outrage at those who were making a political deal out of the Levinsky story. (Read more after the link)

Don't let the current focus on the "oil for food" scandal fool you, the administration is using this story to trash the UN and justify its decision to act unilaterally in Irak and elsewhere in the world.

I am not condoning whatever corruption happened in the oil for food scheme, but I find the violence with which this case has been prosecuted by right wingers the past few days more than suspicious. The true intent behind this slant campaign is obviously to completely discredit the UN and lay the grounds for more unilateral actions in the future. invasion, we were right to trust only ourselves, because the rest of the world is crooked and corrupted... The subtext is clear: we had all reasons to bypass the international community when going to Irak.