New York Post:

January 31, 2008 -- Democrats in 22 states across America go to the polls next Tuesday to pick between two presidential prospects: Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

We urge them to choose Obama - an untried candidate, to be sure, but preferable to the junior senator from New York.

Obama represents a fresh start.

His opponent, and her husband, stand for déjà vu all over again - a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency.

Does America really want to go through all that once again? It will - if Sen. Clinton becomes president.

That much has become painfully apparent.

Bill Clinton's thuggishly self-centered campaign antics conjure so many bad, sad memories that it's hard to know where to begin.

Suffice it to say that his Peck's-Bad-Boy smirk - the Clinton trademark - wore thin a very long time ago.

Far more to the point, Sen. Clinton could have reined him in at any time. But she chose not to - which tells the nation all it needs to know about what a Clinton II presidency would be like.

Now, Obama is not without flaws.

For all his charisma and his eloquence, the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning. And on national security, his worldview is beyond naive - blithely unware that America must defend itself against those sworn to destroy the nation.

Meanwhile, Obama's all-things-to-all-people approach to complex domestic issues also arouses scant confidence. "Change!" for the sake of change does not a credible campaign platform make.

But he remains a highly intelligent man, with a strong record as a conciliator. And, again, he is not Team Clinton.

That counts for a very great deal.

A return to Sen. Clinton's cattle-futures deal, Travelgate, Whitewater, Filegate, the Lincoln Bedroom Fire Sale, Pardongate - and the inevitable replay of the Monica Mess?

No, thank you.

No, thank you, indeed.

Mitt Romney is an honorable, decent human being. Let's just state that right off the bat. He means well, he has a wonderful family, he has been a wonderful father, a wonderful husband, and a most competent businessman, and I truly believe that he has the best intentions and best hopes for his country.

But I could not help be pained watching Wednesday's Republican debate, and watch Romney - who I truly believe to be an honorable gentleman - in a political arena that he simply is not prepared for. If he were prepared for it, he would have ruthlessly and aggressively shot back at John McCain for his various distortions of Romney's record, particularly Romney's stance on the Iraq surge. But instead, Romney could only shoot back that John McCain had gotten "three pinocchios" from various sources with regard to his distortions of Romney's record. This speaks of a political naivete of monumental and symphonic proportions.

John over at Powerline really sums up Romney's problem:

I didn't see tonight's debate, and haven't read any account of it other than Paul's. (I deleted the 50 or 60 emails that came in to my Blackberry from the campaigns.) So I have nothing to say about tonight's event, but do have some broader comments on the general subject of politics and business.

I know many successful businessmen, and a number of successful politicians. In my experience, businessmen generally think that they are smarter and tougher than politicians. "Smarter" goes without saying, "tougher" means that they interpret politicians' equivocations and changes of position as weakness. I think the businessmen are wrong on both counts. Successful politicians, on the average, are both "smarter," i.e. abler, and tougher than successful businessmen.

In the business world, Mitt Romney is as successful as anyone can be. No one attains his level of achievement without enormous talents and an oversized ego. Yet, compared to John McCain, Romney is modest and self-effacing. As a businessman among politicians, he is a boy among men.

Politics attracts the most ambitious and ruthless of men. (That's the real reason why, at its upper levels, politics, much more than business, is dominated by men, not women.) In many countries, men with unnatural appetites go into politics because if they are successful, they will be able to have the people they don't like shot. Here in America, we don't shoot our political losers, and politics is not just a variety of organized crime. Still, many of the same sorts of people are attracted to it.

Businessmen, in my experience, are generally more idealistic than politicians. Businessmen really do make deals with a handshake. No one would dream of doing that with Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or the Clintons. Turning a businessman loose in the political world is basically a mismatch. That's the sense I get of McCain's reaction to having Romney as his last serious rival. He can't believe his good fortune; Romney is an amateur. McCain can poke him in the eye, knee him in the groin, and the rule-following businessman has no idea how to respond.

I don't view this as an argument in Romney's favor. As President, he wouldn't be dealing with honorable, law-abiding businesspeople. He would be going up against the Vladimir Putins, Osama bin Ladens and Harry Reids of the world. This is not a game for amateurs. I think we should recognize that professional politicians bring important experience and skills to the table, and that one of those skills is the ability to knee an opponent in the groin and get away with it. It's not pretty. But, compared to politics, business is beanbag, and politics is the game the Republican nominee will have to play.

Romney must have been absoutely - and justifiably - flabbergasted at McCain's attack on him for his stance on the surge in Iraq. But the fact that he was so surprised, and his indignant and amateurish response to that attack, when he should have gone completely on the aggressive offensive, speaks volumes as to why John McCain is now the most likely Republican nominee for the presidency.

He's cut deep into Hillary's national lead. This will make tomorrow's first one on one debate between the two all the more interesting.

Perhaps Mitt senses the McCain train irreversibly leaving the station:

In a major boost for McCain, Romney signaled earlier Wednesday that he's not ready to commit to a costly campaign in the states holding primaries and caucuses next week.

Several officials said that on the heels of a defeat in Tuesday's Florida primary, Romney's campaign was not attempting to purchase television advertising time in any of the states on the Super Tuesday calendar.

Instead, the former Massachusetts governor's current plans call for campaigning in California and other primary states, said the officials, who had knowledge of the internal discussions. There would be organizational efforts primarily for caucus states.

He's learning how to take it to HillBill:

DENVER (AP) - Democratic White House candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday said rival Hillary Rodham Clinton is too polarizing to win the presidency and she has taken positions shared by President Bush and Republican candidate John McCain for political expediency.

Obama depicted Clinton as a calculating, poll-tested divisive figure who will only inspire greater partisan divisions as she sides with Republicans on issues like trade, the role of lobbyists in politics and national security. At the same time, he elevated McCain, fresh off victory in Florida's crucial primary, as the likely Republican nominee.

"Democrats will win in November and build a majority in Congress not by nominating a candidate who will unite the other party against us, but by choosing one who can unite this country around a movement for change," Obama said, speaking as rival John Edwards was pulling out of the race in New Orleans, leaving a Clinton-Obama fight for the Democratic nomination.

"It is time for new leadership that understands the way to win a debate with John McCain or any Republican who is nominated is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq or who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like, who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed," Obama said.

Jay Cost:

-McCain once again won those who are disenchanted by the Bush presidency. Most Florida Republicans (68%) approve of the Bush administration. Romney won them, 35% to 31%. McCain, however, scored an overwhelming, 22-point victory among the 32% of voters who disapprove. I think this is one of the evolving stories of the Republican contest. If you like Bush, you are inclined to Romney (or one of the other candidates, all of whom but Ron Paul do better among Bush supporters than Bush opponents). If you dislike Bush, you are inclined to McCain.

-From a certain perspective, this is an ironic feature of this campaign. McCain has been campaigning, in part, on the surge - the hallmark of the Bush presidency for the last year. Romney has been campaigning on fixing Washington. But the results do not follow these pitches. Why? I think one reason has to do with the long memories of voters. McCain's reputation as an anti-Bush maverick is still quite ingrained in their minds. So, those who disapprove of Bush are "naturally" inclined to McCain, despite Romney's anti-Washington pitch. Meanwhile, voters supportive of Bush recall how many times McCain has been a thorn in the president's side, and so are inclined to Romney.

-There is a lesson in all of this about the limitations of political campaigns. They only do so much to shape the thinking of the American voter. Those who have held opinions about political figures for a long time are not going to be easily disabused of them, despite how many political ads are run or adjustments in messaging are made. I think this hints at a mistake the Romney campaign made - it pivoted too late to a message about fixing Washington.

-McCain won voters for whom the economy is their top concern, 40% to 32%. Remember that McCain won them by a nose in New Hampshire. Isn't that strange, given Romney's message? Not necessarily. If we step back and look at it from a broader perspective - this can start to make sense. While it is true that Romney's campaign message has been about fixing the economy - Romney won voters who think the economy is healthy. McCain won voters who think the economy is sick. So, it should come as no surprise that the voters for whom the economy is tops went for McCain, given these divisions. If you think the economy is healthy, it is probably not your top concern.

-McCain won the ideological coalition he won in the previous states. He won liberals and moderates by a large margin. He split those who consider themselves "somewhat" conservative. And he lost those voters who consider themselves "very" conservative by a wide margin. We saw this in New Hampshire and South Carolina.

"Shut up"

Bill Clinton personally has tried to talk Ted Kennedy out of endorsing Barack Obama, and has failed. Why would Kennedy be talked out of it? Bill Clinton has used and abused his position as former president and de facto party leader to unfairly attack Barack Obama in recent weeks, and now he expects Kennedy to stay out of it?

I suspect that the senator was sufficiently offended, as were the majority of South Carolinians, at the dirty tactics of Bill and Hillary that he had finally had enough. In any event, it's a major whack at Hillary's campaign.

Is not going to win any points with most hardcore GOP primary voters by uttering a patent falsehood. His assertion that Mitt Romney called for an outright withdrawl of troops in Iraq is hilariously wrong. It is simply inconsistent with anything that Romney has uttered during this campaign. This coupled with McCain's denial that he ever admitted weakness on the economy, when he is on record as having done so, shows a kind of bizarre behavior by McCain leading up to Tuesday's Florida caucuses. It's likely to remind the GOP rank-and-file of McCain's penchant to unpredictably go off the tracks at crucial moments.

Well now, turns out that the same Hillary Clinton who condemned Barack Obama's association with Tony Rezko, that same Hillary turned up in a picture with Rezko.

If the Obama camp dug this up and fed it to reporters, it's encouraging. It means they are finally learning how to hit the Clintons back hard and play in their league.

Heh.

Robert Reich:

I write this more out of sadness than anger. Bill Clinton’s ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks on Barack Obama are doing no credit to the former President, his legacy, or his wife’s campaign. Nor are they helping the Democratic party. While it may be that all is fair in love, war, and politics, it’s not fair – indeed, it’s demeaning – for a former President to say things that are patently untrue (such as Obama’s anti-war position is a “fairy tale”) or to insinuate that Obama is injecting race into the race when the former President is himself doing it. Meanwhile, the attack ads being run in South Carolina by the Clinton camp which quote Obama as saying Republicans had all the ideas under Reagan, is disingenuous. For years, Bill Clinton and many other leading Democrats have made precisely the same point – that starting in the Reagan administration, Republicans put forth a range of new ideas while the Democrats sat on their hands. Many of these ideas were wrong-headed and dangerous, such as supply-side economics. But for too long Democrats failed counter with new ideas of their own; they wrongly assumed that the old Democratic positions and visions would be enough. Clinton’s 1992 campaign – indeed, the entire “New Democratic” message of the 1990s – was premised on the importance of taking back the initiative from the Republicans and offering Americans a new set of ideas and principles. Now, sadly, we’re witnessing a smear campaign against Obama that employs some of the worst aspects of the old politics.

Every American, regardless of political affiliation, who genuinely hopes to see a significant reduction in the nasty and malignant political partisanship and polarization that has for so long dominated Washington, must be increasingly dismayed watching the pathetic antics of Bill and Hillary Clinton in recent days.

It is unbecoming and inappropriate for Bill Clinton to have so directly injected himself into the campaign in support of his wife, and to be so engaged in the effort to personally destroy his wife's chief opponent, Barack Obama. Bill Clinton is a former President of The United States, and there is simply no precedent for a former president doing what Bill Clinton is now engaged in. Democrat party leaders have voiced both alarm and anger at this in recent days. But should we be that surprised? This is Bill Clinton we're talking about, after all.

Further, Bill and Hillary are now consciously and obviously engaged in an effort to inject racism into the Democratic contest. This might be successful in the short term, but it is clear that African Americans both in South Carolina and increasingly nationwide, are becoming sufficiently offended and angered that it could fatally damage Hillary's chances of being elected in November if she is the Democrat nominee. For a person who generally supports the conservative cause, as I do, this would be expected to be a favorable outcome.

However, the reminder of the polarization and nastiness of the Clinton years, the pathetic and disgusting racial and personal destructive politics that they are now engaged in, and the dignity and optimistic hope with which Barack Obama has generally conducted his campaign, leads me to highly hope that the Clinton effort backfires very badly in their faces, and that Barack Obama becomes the Democrat nominee who will face off with the Republican in November.

One would hope that Barack Obama will now go for broke, showing no hesitation whatsoever, with no backing off, with full dignified aggressiveness, and pulling out ALL of the stops, in an effort to stop the Clintons and win the Democratic nomination.

It is time for Bill and Hillary to go away for good, and one hopes that Barack Obama has it in him to do all that is necessary to send them packing.

Michael Medved lists and refutes them.

Mickey Kaus:

Worse, it's hard to see an easy way out of it for Obama, at least before the wave of primaries and caucuses on Feb. 5. He could try to make Hillary the pet candidate of Latinos the way he's being cast as the pet candidate of blacks--but that would require a shift to the right on immigrant legalization that he doesn't seem willing to make. (I hope I'm wrong about that.**)

The more obvious move is to find a Sister Souljah--after Saturday--to stiff arm. The most promising candidate is not a person, but an idea: race-based affirmative action. Obama has already made noises about shifting to a class-based, race-blind system of preferences. What if he made that explicit? Wouldn't that shock hostile white voters into taking a second look at his candidacy? He'd renew his image as trans-race leader (and healer). The howls of criticism from the conventional civil-rights establishment--they'd flood the cable shows--would provide him with an army of Souljahs to hold off. If anyone noticed Hillary in the ensuing fuss, it would be to put her on the spot--she'd be the one defending mend-it-don't-end-it civil rights orthodoxy.

I can't think of a better plan. Can you?