Michael Gerson, fresh on the heels of the Republican debate, reasons in a new editorial that a race between Obama and McCain would be the best for America. Obama's message of change is better suited, he writes, because Hillary's positions on abortion are too radicial-- "safe, legal, and rare."

Gerson, a member of the much frothed-over CFR and author of Heroic Conservatism, regards Obama as more honorable despite what he sees as Clinton's strengths:

Her health-care plan, for example, could be the basis for serious discussions with Republican congressional leaders. Her national security team seems more skilled and experienced than Barack Obama's. And her various positions on Iraq have always been slippery enough to avoid specific, hand-tying commitments on troop withdrawals, leaving her the option of responsibility (though, like the other Democratic candidates, she seems incapable of using the word "victory" in a time of war).

Still, he goes on, her candidacy is an invitation for reminisces of:

"I didn't inhale." Kathleen Willey. Whitewater. "Two for the price of one." Polling to select vacation sites. Baking cookies. Joycelyn Elders. Hillarycare. "What the meaning of the word 'is' is." Blue dress. "That woman." Lewinsky, as noun and verb.

Nevermind that thoroughly disgraced Jeff Gerth published a book harping on just those details that failed to earn money even as NewsMax magazine's subscription free gift.  (Obama might have acceded to the offer as his campaign clearly owns a copy of the book. He has frequently repeated a discredited claim from it on campaign stops.)

The Clintons are unprincipled and untrustworthy, he proclaims, likening them to racist Alabama governor George Wallace and denouncing them for their criticism of Obama's choice to be, "God forbid, ... defending Ronald Reagan."

And so, Reagan-loving abortion-hating, Gerson reasons that Obama would be the best choice for the Democratic nomination. In light of these new facts, I must rethink whether or not I am supporting the right candidate. I hope everyone does the same.

""Summary: After Iraq, we may be tempted to turn inward. That would be a mistake. The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. We must bring the war to a responsible end and then renew our leadership -- military, diplomatic, moral -- to confront new threats and capitalize on new opportunities. America cannot meet this century's challenges alone; the world cannot meet them without America.

Barack Obama is a Democratic Senator from Illinois and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.""

The below response of mine is a response which i have cross posted here in response to anothers blog yesterday at the dailykos

Bumpd--Chris

There is not much on which the left and right blogospheres agree, except, perhaps, on the ability of the Internet itself to transform politics.  It empowers the masses and provides for greater transparency in government, allowing citizens to have a greater understanding of and power over what's going on in Washington.

We have banded together before on these principles and won - on the battle to keep the Internet free of onerous campaign finance regulations, and on the battle for transparency in earmarks - forcing Sen. Stevens to release his hold on the Coburn-Obama bill.  

Today, it's time to launch a third joint campaign, and that's to bring the United States Senate into the 21st century when it comes to campaign finance reporting.  Today's Washington Post explains the stakes:

There was a time when it was very difficult to find out where political money was coming from. There was a time when attaché cases filled with cash changed hands. These were the bad old days. You know, the days when we passed things like the Wagner Act, wage & hour laws, created the SEC, FCC, FDIC, and a whole alphabet soup of agencies. These were the bad old days when we created NASA, passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, and Headstart. Yes, these were the bad old days.