The Democrats have simultaneously the best golden opportunity they have had in decades-probably since FDR-(even better than JFK, whose marital life was a disgrace)--and the worst luck. But if they make the right choice, they will reap the benefits. And the choice is obvious.

The US is sick to death of cynicism. Mudcatters evidently are not--aside from Amos, Joe, Poppa-Gator, Bobert, and a few others. It's interesting that some of the most cynical are not Americans. But some of course are.

At any rate, to win in the fall, the Democrats must turn their backs on cynicism. And that clearly means to turn their backs on Hillary. The opportunity to do so--and pick the anti-Hillary--is here.

One of the aspects the country is most heartily sick of is the politics of personal destruction, with enemies lists and vicious misleading attacks.   Hillary comes loaded with the baggage of both the 1960's and the 1990's--e.g. the Woodstock museum for the 1960's, and a huge list for the 1990's--neither of which she can ever shake off--not that she is even trying to do so. And on top of that, she now embodies the politics of personal destruction--and against a fellow Democrat.

Her cynical bet on dragging Obama down to her level has done nothing but poison the well she plans to drink out of in the fall, as I noted earlier. Her despicable exploitation of Obama's remark about Reagan--implying he supports Reagan's policies when he clearly does not--is just the latest in a long series of revolting scorched-earth tactics--which can do nothing but backfire on her.

There is widespread revulsion against Bush in the US-- not just among Democrats--and in the world, of course. So the Republicans had to find an anti-Bush. But they have done so.

In McCain they have an authentic American hero--instead of a team of draft-dodgers headed by a disgrace, which is what we now have. While we are now graced with a certified boob, incapable of putting a coherent sentence together--or indeed anything but spectacularly successful propaganda--McCain can both think on his feel and has a sparkling dry wit--despite his experience as a POW. (Or perhaps that helped him survive it.)

While Bush is closed to anything but his own narrow beliefs, McCain is open to new ones--"non-Republican" ideas--campaign finance reform, fighting global warming, among others. He is also, against a huge strident vocal segment of his party, ready to stand up for a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. And this as an Arizona senator.

But McCain is vulnerable. He is vulnerable to the "throw the bums out" mentality which threatens all Republicans who are tied to Bush in the least.

He is vulnerable if the recession hits by the fall--unclear now.

Another vulnerable point is his support for Bush's blatantly pro-rich tax cuts--which he now supports--and plans more.

Also his anti-abortion stance--and his declared intention to appoint only conservative judges to the Supreme Court.

He is especially vulnerable on Iraq. The body bags--even just a trickle-continue. Each one leaving a shattered family. Even if the situation there does not degenerate between now and the fall--definitely unclear since "national reconciliation", the declared goal of the "surge" is virtually non-existent. We hear about the ballyhooed "Awakening"-- the rejection of al-Qaeda by Sunni Iraqis. But nobody--certainly no Republican but Paul--seems to draw the obvious conclusion that this means that the supposed threat of al-Qaeda taking over Iraq has disappeared--and with it our reason for being there--aside from "Kurdistan" where there is both oil and where the Kurds want us. (So a complete withdrawal from Iraq will not happen.) But we obviously can and should withdraw from the rest of it.

But to beat him, the Democrats also have to have an anti-Bush--somebody who rejects the idea of divide and conquer and only appealing to the true believers--in favor of a "big tent". That is clearly not Hillary--but it is Obama.

In Obama the Democrats have a man who is not only smart, witty, and full of good ideas--but who is also willing to put behind us the vicious partisanship which has ruled the US for so long, which the country desperately wants to leave behind us--and which Hillary embodies.

Obama will get enthusiastic support across the board--Democrats, independents--and some Republicans--especially anti-Iraq war Republicans. Hillary will not even get enthusiastic broad-based Democratic support--thanks to her current vicious campaigning.

The only question now is whether the Democrats realize this, and will pick Obama, who represents a bright future--not least for our children, many of whom are already energized on his behalf. Or will the Democrats be self-destructive enough to pick Team Clinton--Bill has just about destroyed his own legacy already with his "bad cop" approach--and their obvious thrall to the discredited slash-and-burn politics we have had for so long?