After watching Obama's forceful rejection of his Reverend Wright, I was left thinking this is now going to be more than a mere distraction for him.

In prior weeks, the public heard the clips of Wright denouncing America and found them disgusting and probably just the tip of the iceberg. Obama compared Wright to his grandmother - with maybe outdated views, maybe an inflammatory way of speaking, but who expressed otherwise valid ideas. Much of the media accepted this explanation.

In the light of day, in a public forum, Obama seems to finally recognize that which anyone not blinded by partisan support for him already recognized - Wright's worldview is offensive.  Obama demurred when asked today about "black liberation theology" preached at his church, saying he just went to pray, listen to sermons, and help the community. Obama appears to have developed a false impression in his own mind. Deluded himself to the point of risking his presidential bid.

Because of this, the question that will remain is how he went to that church for 20 years and exposed his children to such vitriol, while remaining so willfully ignorant.

Cynics will say Obama only (finally) renounced Wright because politics demanded it.  It would have been politically smarter for Obama to just let Wright to fade, however slowly.  Obama appears genuinely angry, but his speech reveals that Obama suffers from a certain naivety that as long as a good measure of hope and change are at work, the underlying negative elements may be considered mere surplusage.

In his church, the inflammatory sermons were reinterpreted by Obama in light of the church's community outreach and spiritual communion. He missed the underlying worldview being sold to the congregation.

I see the same unfortunate naivety in the substantive issues of the campaign as well.  As long as we just get out of Iraq and change the way we think about the world - to reject the flawed thinking of the Bush administration that got us into the war - then the realities on the ground in Iraq are really not that important.  As long as American soldiers are no longer dying and we can free up funds to be used for education and improving the lives of regular Americans, then the Middle East can be put into context.  We can then engage the Middle East in a hopeful way, by shifting the debate we can deter nuclear proliferation, national ambitions, and Islamic terrorism.  I do not want to put words into Obama's mouth, but this is the proposition he seems to be pushing.

It may be argued that there is a big difference between recognizing objectively harmful remarks while in church and making strategic decisions about the future of the nation. This is true.  But this willful ignorance/naivety now appears to permeate everything Obama says and does.

In light of Obama's admission of either willful ignorance or naivety, he has greatly increased my doubt of his ability to make sound judgments on the issues facing this country.

Some say Huckabee stays in the race to ensure his political future; others say he continues to run simply because he enjoys it.  I don't think any of these self-centered explanations are accurate.  The real reason for Huckabee's persistence is that he intends to keep his word to his supporters.

There seems to be a strong emotional bond between Huckabee and his supporters.  He always has a story about the people he has met in each state and his intention to maintain friendships with them.  One woman even gave Huckabee her grandmother's wedding ring because she had no money.  How can he drop out after making personal, not just political, promises?

The parable of David and Goliath and the potential for miracles are surely also in Huckabee's mind, but are not the driving force.  Huckabee will stay in the race at least until McCain has earned the 1,191 needed to secure the nomination.

Huckabee's persistence helps the Republican party by keeping the Republican nominee in the news and by giving the "true conservatives" an opportunity to grieve over the loss of Romney.  They can vote for Huckabee, not because they think he will win, but because they need to get their frustration out.  Then after McCain earns the rest of the delegates, rather than getting them by default, the "true conservatives" can feel better about supporting him.

In Romney's speech Tuesday night, he related a conversation with his wife in which she told him that nothing in the results was clear.

Speaking as if his wife wasn't even in the room, he said that she was "wrong."  Her expression said it all - she was not a happy camper.  Romney should know better than to tell a woman she is wrong, let alone in an auditorium full of people.

[Unless, of course, that woman is Hillary Clinton]

I'm beaming with pride.  My Missouri prediction appears to have panned out.  Though I made a bet for McCain to win California by 5%-10% on CNN I had come to expect Romney to win the state.

I am agreement with Bill Kristol that Romney will drop out by Thursday.  Huckabee has little choice but to stay in the race at least through the next run of elections on February 9th.  If he drops out now, he will be revealed as a bit of a fraudulent candidate (see West Virginia) that served only to push Romney out.

Huckabee cannot be McCain's running mate.  McCain seriously needs to regain his party's confidence by choosing a solidly conservative candidate.  Huckabee will make a great Secretary of the Interior.  Giuliani will be Attorney General, of course.  For purposes of reconciliation, I can even see Romney taking a role in the government.

It is important that Huckabee plays through the last set, Romney retires graciously, and the talk show hosts make amends to ensure good turn-out on election day.

McCain has been accused of supporting amnesty for illegal Mexican immigrants.  Simply put, he did not.  It is a lie to claim otherwise.

He supported a plan that created a path to citizenship for those who want it.  It may come as a surprise to some people, but the U.S. does have immigration policies that favor certain immigrants.  Cubans enjoy such a favored status.  McCain's plan did not favor Mexicans in that way but recognized that Mexican immigrants pose special problems and warrant a novel policy.

Once again, certain angry conservatives thought we could just put up a big wall and pack Mexicans into trucks and drive them to the border.

Mexicans are not the problem.  The problems are the inability to secure our border and to maintain realistic immigration procedures.  Have we solved those problems in the past 8 years of a Republican presidency and thriving talk radio? No.

I guess as long as we just build a wall (not a bad idea, mind you) that is enough to mollify some conservatives.  McCain's solution was not perfect, but it was a solution.

McCain is also attacked for being part of the "Gang of 14."  That group of senators compromised to prevent the Republican-controlled Senate from forcing through judicial nominees despite Democratic fillibusters.

As a direct result of this agreement, conservative judges Janice Brown William Pryor, and Priscilla Owen were all confirmed.  And the path was paved for easy confirmations of Alito and Roberts.

Additionally, if a Democratic president is elected, they will not benefit from a precedent that would allow them to force through liberal judges.  Once again, certain angry conservatives just wanted red meat, regardless the price.

McCain has been attacked for voting against tax cuts.  He has consistently expressed the view that he believes it to be irresponsible to cut taxes, in the face of growing military expenditures, without also proportionately cutting spending.

That is just good common sense.  If the government spends ever more money while taking ever less money in, we must necessarily be borrowing it (from China and the like).  Those conservatives who miss this "nuance" then attack him when he supports the tax cuts in an effort to garner their support.

Just the mentioning of "McCain-Feingold" apparently causes some conservatives to suffer a stroke.  It has been called one of the worst attacks on First Amendment rights.  But what does it do?  In a nutshell: it increased the amount of money that individuals could donate to political campaigns and limited the amount of money that special interest groups could donate to political campaigns.  It does not prevent anyone from expressing any opinion.

Has it worked as intended? Not really.  Special interests groups still continue to exercise too much influence (which utterly belies the argument that free speech has been inhibited).  Was it a terribly anti-conservative attack on free speech? No.

Why have some conservatives called it an attack on free speech? Because he opposed the political status quo.  He sought to limit the control of interest groups over politicians.  Critics fear losing the influence that comes with wealth, not losing their ability to speak.

Missouri is a state with a good amount of delegates (58) and the winner takes all.  It is one of the few states where all three contenders (McCain, Romney, and Huckabee) are fairly close in the polls.  I believe it will be a sort of canary in the coal mine.  It will either correspond to a strong showing by Huckabee in the southern states, will evidence a resurgence by Romney against McCain, or will reaffirm McCain's strength across a broad spectrum of states.

Or even more apt on this day after Groundhog Day, Missouri is the groundhog. If McCain wins Missouri, he will have the nomination.  If either of the others wins it, the race is prolonged and the winner of Missouri will become the presumptive challenger to McCain.

Romney insists that Huckabee should get out of the race because Huckabee's presence will only result in a McCain victory by siphoning off Romney votes.  I find that assertion shameful.

On the social issues, Huckabee does offer a clear conservative alternative to both Romney and McCain.  Huckabee's major disadvantage has been a lack of funds.  Romney has been able to pull millions of dollars from his own pocket to make sure people know him as an alternative to McCain.  All Huckabee has had is his ideas - which explains why he has gained support nonetheless.

Huckabee is doing extraordinarily well in the southern states that will be voting on Tuesday. I could see a scenario where hardcore conservative rally to Huckabee, splitting the vote between him and MCcain, pushing Romney to third place. Thereafter the race would clarify as people accept that Romney isn't all that conservative but was a placeholder for those who don't care for McCain.

When Huckabee was on Fox News today, the reporters chuckled when he suggested that maybe Romney should drop out so people would vote for him instead.  It was amusing that Romney's sense of entitlement was even adopted by the media who fail to take candidates seriously just because they have 41 fewer delegates than the next guy.

Why do conservatives oppose efforts to make sure all Americans have health insurance?
Is it practical: the government cannot effectively ensure quality health care?
Is it fiscal: the cost is just too high when we have such a stretched budget already?
Is it ideological: the government has no place making laws regarding whether a person has health insurance?

Maybe it is something else.  For me, the last reason is decisive. Health insurance is NOT like automobile insurance - as Hillary and some commentators have asserted (including supporters of Romney's health care initiatives in Massachusetts).  I can choose whether or not to drive a car and there is no Constitutional right to do so.  By choosing to drive, I quite clearly put others at risk (and those who have ridden with me would vehemently agree) because driving is inherently risky - high speeds combined with unpredictability of other drivers and pedestrians.  By assuming the privilege to drive it is reasonable that I be compelled to qualify for that privilege (pass driving tests and have insurance).

Being alive is not a privilege to be regulated but rather a fundamental right.  [Of course actions are regulated and taxed, but not the mere act of existing.]  If one can afford health insurance but chooses to spend the money on leisure activities, that should be one's right.  It may be stupid and result in financial ruin if that person were to get seriously injured, but it should not the role of the government to protect us from our own stupidity.

Romney's health care plan creates what he likes to call a "personal responsibility system" because it requires each person to seek out and acquire their own health care but does make the government or employers provide it.

In a Time magazine article, Romney stated "I don't like calling it universal coverage....[t]hat smacks of Hillarycare."  And this gets back to my original question, what is it that is so offensive about federally mandated health insurance?  I doubt most conservative have thoroughly read and considered Hillary's plan or conducted intensive research on its feasibility.  We just don't like it and feel the government should stay out of these decisions.

Romney says he did not raise taxes - yet how many people were forced to buy health insurance because of his law?  Under Romney's plan, I imagine that the middle class are burdened most.  The poor still have Medicaid, the wealthy would have no problem affording insurance, but the middle class would be forced to spend what little "disposable" income they have. Would the struggling middle class families buy the optimal plans or the cheapest ones with higher co-pays?  I speculate they would buy the latter.  In my view this offers little substantive protection.

Romney may choose his language carefully so that the plan does not "smack" of Hillarycare, but in my view it is Hillarycare 1A.

The Iraq debate has basically been whether we should follow a timetable or an objective-oriented approach. The danger of adhering to a timetable is not just letting the enemy know our strategy but also prematurely leaving so as to let a bad situation get far worse.

When expressly asked whether we should have a timetable (ie follow the Democrats plan), Romney gave a very political answer and said yes we should have timetables - but then described it in terms of having objectives.

So the question remains whether Romney has secret plans in mind to leave Iraq based on a timeline, and not based solely on fulfilling objectives.

If the Republican party instead favored leaving Iraq as soon as practicable, I don't doubt that Romney would effortlessly reframe his comment as support for a true timetable (albeit a secret one).

This should give pause as to Romney. That Romney has such skill and political acumen that he can change his views on the major social issues (health care, abortion, civil unions) and answer questions about Iraq in such a way as to leave wiggle room for later revision. Romney has such a silver tongue that he has convinced so many that he is a "true" conservative.

Meanwhile, a handful of bills and votes from just a few of 25 years spent in the Senate are levied again McCain as "evidence" that he is not a conservative. The problem is, McCain doesn't apologize for his stances or change them merely for political advantage.

At least we know exactly where McCain stands on the issues and that he is reliably, though not dogmatically, conservative.

One last thing: I don't think that anyone could possibly be a liberal after the experience of spending 6 years as a POW in Vietnam. Not even Jane Fonda.