I will be voting for Obama later today.

In November I will definitely vote for Obama if he is the nominee, and will likely (but not definitely) vote for Clinton if she is the nominee.

I will be voting this way for one simple reason: Because I think it's in the best interests of this country.

"One more thing: the Democrats cannot win by running against George Bush."

True that. They could all stand to read Peter Beinart's book.

I am glad you read  Democratiya which is one of the great magazines beinng published on the web.

There's some fine work being done by the new Committee on the Present Danger, the best example being Rachel Ehrenfeld's lonely and courageous reporting on Putin's billionaire pal Oleg Deripaska, a murderer who stands out among the Russian aluminum industry's gallery of hitmen and bandits. But all in all, it's unfortunate that the team revived the CPD name and team, with its rather clear and present invitation to simply substitute "jihadist" for "soviet."

This is hugely misleading, and unfortunate. The dangers we face are of course multiple in nature, the state system's no longer organized around a US and an anti-US pole, and the jihadist threat is not anywhere near so dangerous-- not even in the same universe, really-- as the soviet threat. That threat was ideological in nature, and modern, and comprehensive. It presented a coherent (and to billions around the world, compelling) alternative to capitalism, and was backed up by an arsenal and a political and subversive effort that matched our own. There's simply no comparison between today's bands of dopey wahhabists and the Warsaw Pact, the PRC and their billions of soldiers, military and otherwise, who advanced the Communist International on every continent.

That so many of our leading intellectuals are eager to try to shoehorn this new environment into the last century's frames is a little disturbing. Also problematic-- here are a few problems raised by trotting out the manichaean CPD brand in this new state system:

1) Russia's not an ideological threat anymore, merely an africanized bandit state. If you want to reduce these bandits' influence in the world, get alternative fuels going ASAP.

2) China's a far, far bigger problem for the US than state terror is, and requires enormous bandwidth and focus that are sapped by the jihad-all-the-time mindset

3) to handle Iran, NKor and plenty of other problems, we'll need cooperation and outright favors from Russia and China, which means that they and their influence represent not just "dangers" but also opportunities.

The last point should remind us that the goal here isn't just to crush vipers hither and thither but to shape the state system ** in our favor ** through every tool and trick in the book. Our playbook's looking pretty slim these days. Best to bulk it up IMO rather than revive Cold War dinosaurs.

It's the economy, stupid.  To the extent the war is relevant to the campaign, it will be when Barack or Hillary says "I'll spend that $9 billion per month on you and not Iraq" and McCain tries to tell a nation worried about their jobs why that's wrong.  

I'm not a great fan of Joe Stiglitz but his numbers on the ral, long-term cost of the Iraq War are a lot closer to the mark than anything we ever saw from Wolfowitz, Cheney, Gaffney and their ilk. There's no question that the ** all-in ** cost of this war, which I supported, will be in the trillions. Yes, TRILLIONS.

I think it's incumbent on those of us who thought Wolfowitz was a wise and courageous public servant, and supported this debacle originally, to admit that it has been a clusterf*** to end all clusterf***s, and that we need to figure out how to, at a minimum, cut our losses in Iraq and salvage the other war, the one we're in serious danger of losing, in Afghanistan. And now Pakistan.

Can we be smart this time around? And keep the dangerS in perspective?

Gotta disagree with you on the idea of not running against Bush.  Bush is precisely WHY we're having all these debates and why the Republican party is in tatters today.  The Rs overeached to the extreme and have exposed their strategy for what it really is.....a corporatocracy that transfers money and power to those in power.  

I seriously doubt that any body would even consider voting for McCain or Obama today if it weren't for the unbeleivable arrogance and cluelessness of Frat Boy George, DUI Dick and all their neoconjob bootlickers.

When Obama and Clinton invoked the  failures of Bush in that L.A. debate is when I felt most proud of my party and realized I don't care which one wins, as long as the long nightmare is finally over in Jan. '09.

I, for one, am DAMN angry and want our candidate to remind the people of this great country every single day of the shame and destruction wrought by these criminals.  I think the country needs to be reminded that all this was brought to you care of the Republican Party.  The party of fiscal responsibility.  The party of family values.  The party of compassionate conservatism.  The party of non-intervention.  The party of strength, respect and democracy in the world.  

It will take 50 years to repair the damage of Reagn-Bush to our standing in the world, our economy, our middle class, our Constitution, Supreme Court and our environment.  It will be a huge job that nobody would really want, but we need to start today.  The slim margin in Congress is ineffective because they are just shy of the 60% vote they need to prevent Bush and Co. from further obstructing the will of the people.  A vote for McCain, sadly, is nothing more than a vote to continue the sorry legacy of the Republican party and the hypocrisy of Reagan-Bush.

We must not be led astray......support the Democratic nominee and restore the USA to greatness once again.

Tep: and it's not just that Wolfowitz et al. were wrong, the Bush administration supressed internal reports that it would cost twice as much as the official number they suggested (and even that was a gross understatement).  

It's the hegemony, stupid.

HRC (and of course, McCain) are running on an 'America is still the hegemon' platform (obviously there would be differences in style and implementation), but both are basically 'America is still #1, still the post WWII order...'

Obama is running on a more conciliatory tone.

In my opinion, America's hegemony is waning, there will be a conciliatory figure who rises, maybe today, maybe 4-8 years from now, who expresses how to deal with this.

Today, that figure is Obama.

Obama is trading in one kind of American exceptionalism (global dominance) for another kind (anyone here in America can make it anywhere, Oprah style.)

Keep in mind I'm a staunch Obama supporter.

I listened to the first 15 minutes of HRC on Stephanapolous this past Sunday, I am even more convinced of this...

We don't need to be the hegemon. We need to be nimble and smart, tough-minded and realistic, and make sure that we preserve prosperity, freedom and well-functioning global markets in a few well-chosen spots. Like, um, here at home, also Europe and Israel, and the Pacific Rim. But let's stop pretending that we can make the arab- or Russian-speaking or African regions safe for democracy. Fixing our finances (public and private) is priority #1, #2  and #3.

I agree Tep 100%.

BUT...

who is going to tell the American people that? Who's going to give them the news?

So far, not McCain nor HRC...

At the risk of being accused of the dreaded "group hug," let me second and third all of tep and mmathog above.  And felicitations to tep for having the guts to admit being wrong in a big way.  If only some of the people in public office were capable of acknowledging error and taking a different course.