Hope went up against Fear in the primaries Tuesday, and for the moment, fear won.   The polling data, along with the split between early voters and voters who made up their minds at the last minute and voted in person, proves Hillary Clinton's last minute Swiftboating of Barack Obama worked.  Specifically, there's no doubting the effectiveness of her despicable ad implying people's children will not be safe in their own beds with Obama in the Oval Office.

She's also proven there's life in the Republican strategy of campaigning on fear.   If it can work now, it will work in November, no matter who wins the Democratic nomination.   If this election is about fear, it's already over-- that's competing on Republican terms, not ours.  

Unless, of course, Barack Obama responds decisively-- and strongly.   This is his decisive moment of testing.   Deplore it as we may, fear is not going to disappear from this world, nor the willingness of the unscrupulous to employ it politically.    Obama has to demonstrate he is tough and strong enough to be President, so that such ads simply aren't credible.

He needs to show there's Leonidas in him, too, along with Mr. Rogers.  

Many of us have read Ari Berman's excellent piece in the latest Nation Magazine.   But events since press time may actually have dated it.

Lost in the coverage of the remarkable February fundraising totals of both the Obama and Clinton campaigns was a real turning point in American politics-- the full realization of the "$100 Revolution"  Gov. Howard Dean called for in November 2003.

On Nov. 18th, 2003 Dean sent out a fundraising message, not in itself an unusual event, but one that would eventually change the parameters of American politics.  

Claims the Surge is "succeeding" in  Iraq appear to be confusing, even rattling some Democrats.   John McCain is now mainly basing his campaign on it, and it seems to have boosted him in the Republican primaries.  Meanwhile, there are growing numbers of articles like neo-con prophet Bill Kristol's in The New York Times demanding to know why Democrats "can't admit we're winning the war in Iraq."    The short answer is we're not.  But this uncertainty is starting to have a serious effect on the Democratic primary race.

From a long view, this race should've been in Hillary Clinton's pocket from the start-- a total non-contest.   The reason it was not was because Clinton's support for the war created an opening for anti-war candidates like Obama and Edwards.  The war split away the women voters who were long assumed to be Clinton stalwarts:  they were repelled by her positions on Iraq.    

Restoring some missing clarity on the nature of guerilla war is over due.  

It's now clear there is a great upheaval underway in the Democratic Party and the electorate as a whole.

A group I belong to, Democracy For America, along with others, pushed for a progressive win in Iowa, and they got it: Obama-Edwards, first and second, a more than 2-1 victory for progressives.

What has happened is really the continuation of what Governor Dean started five years ago-- to move the Democratic Party back to its roots and away from another "me-too" party of corporate power. Both Obama and Edwards ran smart, 21st century campaigns in Iowa, campaigns based on people power, not money power.

It is very important to note that Republican Mike Huckabee did the same thing and beat a much more heavily funded Mitt Romney. Both Clinton and Romney spent tens of millions for their poor showings.

Given the revelations in the Sunday, March 11th Washington Post on the House Democrats' divisions on Iraq, there is growing reason to doubt anything effective will be done by the new Democratic Congress, despite its November victory, to end the war in Iraq, or, according to late reports, do anything to prevent an attack on Iran.  

There is a particularly distressing aspect to the current "debate"  among Democrats in the House of Representatives on what to do.  As party we do not seem to be able to learn from the successes of conservatives.    A major reason Republicans are so united and disciplined is that their leaders are not afraid of going to their rank and file to discipline errant members.    

Democrats in Congress are acting as a caucus:  Republicans are acting as a party.    This is a major reason why they win.    

Here is a question for our Democratic and progressive legal  scholars:  

If a member of the Armed Forces can be court-martialed for Gross Dereliction of Duty, and since the President of the United States is the Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces, why isn't it right and proper for the President to be impeached for Gross Dereliction of Duty?    

The reasons, from the last week alone, should be more than obvious,  to say nothing of the Iraq debacle or the failure to apprehend Ossama in a longer period of time than it took FDR to win World War Two.