That is the question facing primary voters in both parties. For activists it is a difficult choice but it is the choice nonetheless. As much as they would like to ignore it, the country is at war with an implacable foe. It is a foe which would strap explosives on two down's syndrome women and blow them up by remote control. Red lines are unknown to them.

Only a naive, over indulged novice full of himself would believe as Neville Chamberlain did that his powers of persuasion would overcome the enemy's perfidies or, even more distressingly, that it is the US that needs to change, not Al Qaeda. Obama's Indonesian father tried to teach him how to deal with gangsters but the lesson has since been lost by the soft welcome mat presented to him by indulgent idealists. In other words, it would be"risky" to place"our country" in the hands of Obama.

Speaking with Tim Russert, E.J. Dionne, said as much, then added that it was that risk which prevented the Democratic establishment from supporting Obama in the beginning. But, now, they have changed their minds because they believe that supporting Hillary will be risky for the Democratic party because it will open Bill's post presidency baggage.

No one disagreed with the analysis. Indeed, Joe Klein seconded stating that Hillary has spent five years doing her national security homework and Generals consider her the Democratic senator who best understands their concerns. If so, Democrats have to choose between the good of the country and the good of the party. Partisans will hesitate but I suspect my fellow American Democrats will not.

The same choice is also facing Republicans. No one can frustrate the low lives and keep the country secure better than John McCain. Even the partisan who turned his talk show into a long Romney commercial acknowledged as much:

"The world's bad guys," Hewitt writes,"would never for a moment think he would blink in any showdown, or hesitate to strike back at any enemy with the audacity to try again to cripple the US through terror."

Having a president with such a reputation is worth 10 brigades. So why argue so vehemently against presenting the country with an opportunity to vote for such a man? The answer according to Rush, the premier talk show host, McCain will rend the Republican party and, party trumps country. Desperate partisans on both sides try to convince voters that Obama and Romney have a better chance to win the general elections.

But does it matter? Yes. In 1960 the country elected untested John Kennedy president. He so under performed at his summit with Khrushchev as to convince the Soviet dictator placing Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba was not particularly risky. The result? The crisis which brought the planet closest to nuclear war.

Conservative"rebels" handed the elections to Jimmmy who? The result? A Close and strategically important American ally called Iran became an American foe run by soon to be Terror Masters named the Islamic Republic of Iran.

So, yes, choices have consequences and so will those made by Americans in super Tuesday. How lucky we are that average folk, rather than partisan officials will make the decisions. Otherwise, we would have ended up as Israelis have,with shameless power hungry individuals a la Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni.

Just in case you need further convincng, Bill Kristol reminds us

Only a year ago, we were headed toward defeat in Iraq. Without McCain’s public advocacy and private lobbying, President Bush might not have reversed strategy and announced the surge of troops in January 2007. Without McCain’s vigorous leadership, support for the surge in Congress would not have been sustained in the first few months of 2007. So: No McCain, no surge. No surge, failure in Iraq, a terrible setback for America — . . .