If opposition to the Iraq war remains the issue for Democrats, let me introduce you the party's next nominee for president: Sen. Barack Obama.

That's my prediction and I'm sticking to it. At least for today.

Here's why: Of the "big three" Democrats, he's the only candidate with any credibility on the issue.

Sen. Hillary Clinton sounds calculating and coy on Iraq. She won't disavow her vote to go to war in Iraq, but then, with a wink and nod, she says that if she were president in 2002, America wouldn't be in Iraq.

That's about as political as it gets, no? She wants to telepathically communicate to anti-war Democrats that, despite what she says and does, she's really against the war. But rather than draw a clear line, she's focused on positioning herself for the 2008 general election.

Former Sen. John Edwards, meanwhile, has adopted the "I made a mistake" act on the Iraq war. He voted for the war while he was in office, but now he says it was an awful blunder that he will rectify as president. If you caught Edwards' interview last Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press with Tim Russert," you will know that, given enough time to explain himself, Edwards is very convincing. Further, his mea culpa makes Clinton look even more calculating.

But the guy who makes them both look like two-bit beltway politicians is Obama. He wasn't in the U.S. Senate at the time of the Iraq war vote, but as an Illinois state senator he said:

"I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dust bin of history.

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida.

"I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

For Nevada Democrats who place opposition to the Iraq war as their No. 1 priority, Obama is the clear choice.

I hope all three of these candidates will make the time to appear together at various forums in Nevada leading up to our 2008 presidential caucus. The next opportunity is Feb. 21 in Carson City. Obama won't be there, although he'll visit the state a week from today.

Quick thoughts

-- Many readers took the time last week, at my request, to check out the new electronic version of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. I thank you for that. As another reminder (or shameless promotion), you can view this new feature at www.reviewjournal.com/ee/ (scroll to the bottom of the screen for the link that connects you to a demonstration).

Current print subscribers will soon be given the opportunity to add the electronic Review-Journal to their print subscription for a nominal fee. For those of you who live outside of Southern Nevada, subscribing to the electronic version of the Review-Journal gives you, for the first time, full and complete access to the newspaper in a form that replicates the Review-Journal as it comes off our presses each morning. President Bush is an electronic subscriber. Why not you? Call (702) 383-0400 to subscribe.

-- Why aren't Western liberals paying more attention to alarming developments in the Islamic world? The racism practiced by some Islamic schools ought not be tolerated.

For example, how about the recent BBC report that revealed textbooks sponsored by the Saudi government and used at the King Fahd Academy include chapters that describe Jews as "apes" and Christians as "pigs"? Kids as young as 5 are taught from these books and, according to the BBC report, the principal of the school said the books have some "good" chapters, and the alleged racist sections have been "misinterpreted." Excuse me, but how do you misinterpret calling people "pigs" or "apes"?

-- To conclude, let me get back to the neighborhood of Clark County. The ongoing saga of mismanagement (perhaps criminally so) at University Medical Center must always return to the doorstep of the Clark County Commission. That body is elected to watch over the county hospital and, no matter how you assess added blame, one must conclude that commissioners have failed in this task.

And let me go one step further: I don't buy for one New York minute the damage-control assertion that the commission's failures at UMC did not affect patient care. They don't know that. In fact, it's more logical to assume they did. Anytime UMC failed to function on all cylinders, patients suffered.

You can bet that any UMC patient whose condition worsened during this time of mismanagement must be wondering why county commissioners didn't do more. Lawsuits to follow.

Am I wrong?

Sherman Frederick is publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media. Readers may write him at sfrederick@reviewjournal.com.