Nuance? We don't need no stinkin' nuance.

I noticed last night, and this morning, that several democrats are asking: If the anti-war candidate, Dean, is repudiated in NH, can a candidate like Kerry or Clark or Edwards win with a nuanced Iraq war support position?

(Dean's NH ouster is doubtful, but potentially troubling--that money means he's around long past his useful life. Forget Lieberman, he's camp-following now)

Now the post nomination landscape matters and Joe America's attention will be inching up incremementally. I don't see this being won on an anti-war campaign. Why play the nuance angle? And what "nuance", anyway? Candidate X simply needs to repeat:

"Sure this war. Not that time, not that way. Look, national security is priority one, without it, jobs, healthcare mean nothing. Our kids have nothing. But treat it seriously, not as a prop or a shield for your shallowness. The record is clear from inside and outside the security community: A vote for George Bush says your children will live in the the wreckage of a future he creates.

We could have 50 Iraq's, and be no safer, if the commander in chief allows rigged intelligence to guide his decisions, if he allows staff to blow the cover of our spies in the war on terror simply because their relatives uncover facts that contradict an impulsive choice he's made years before.

This is one National Security decision that does not require intelligence, it requires common sense. If we have a commander in chief that doesn't take his job seriously, we need a new commander in chief.

Deploy the surrogates--the Generals Shinseki and Zinni, the career intel types who are smarting from the political backhand this adminstration has given their first loves: National Security and Rationality. Take that tack, shift the conversation, reframe the issue--there's lots of issues like jobs, trade, education that he's vulnerable on--and you keep him back on his heels. Get inside the Bush OODA loop. "Rove" HIM.