Maybe is was the numbers, Noam.  This is more tripe from the Weekly Standard, the periodical that will ladle you all you could ever want. The New Republic is such a superior publication. I remember a letter to the editor at TNR (when they carried such) a few short years ago in which a conservative said that though he did not agree with TNR's politics, he subscribed to it and not to National Review and the Standard because the quality of analysis was so much better at TNR (and still is). Having said that and moving on from what is good for the right to what is good for the country, I do worry about Obambi on the foreign affairs front. He is much too much taken with the power of rhetoric for my taste. Good speeches do not necessarily make for good and wise policy. Sometimes you get both a great speechmaker and a great leader - Abraham Lincoln. I am and will continue to be concerned aboiut these matters.

the ad hominem approach to his name belies your apparent wait and see, LR. If you think the country is on the right track w.r.t. foreign policy, vote McCain. if you believe that the war was a mistake, that a continued presence in Iraq is a bad idea, that our fight will be more diplomatic and economic against islamic extremism, and that we've already spent enough blood and money in Iraq, then I would suggest McCain is not your man, irrespective of any 'experience' issues. I personally find the statement that Obama took a popular position (opposition) to the war laughable, since he was all alone then, and since such a stand could have permenantly damaged his career. and I dont find military service an automatic experience for strategic thinking either.

The McCain boy-os are really piling it on thick, aren't they? They obviously think the way to win over those disgruntled female Clinton voters is with vapid, insincere flattery.

I guess we'll see if it works.

Dbhuff: I have just stolen Mo Dowd's shtick, did you not know? Barack Obama did take an extremely popular position on the war, considering that he then labored on the playing fields of politics in Chicago. He was not even in the US Senate at the time. Since that time, his stance on the war and its aftermath has not been nearly as consistent and principled as he or his supporters advertise. THR had a great article on this some time back. I do not like the new, unimproved McCain. I supported Mac in the 2000 primary season and I admired him from 2000 to 2004. I do not believe that a precipitous withdrawal of troops from Iraq would be a good idea and I predict that if Obama becomes president, such a withdrawal will not happen.

dbhuff, having been in the military, I don't think the kind of strategic thinking you do in the military is really useful for the president, unless the president is going to actually make command decisions.  Soldiers and sailors are trained to win, and by winning have more people alive at the end of a conflict.  It is not the job of a soldier to make a political decision such as whether fighting a battle is reasonable and worth the cost.

anonevent: this, in a nutshell, is why decisions as to War or Peace are left to political leaders and not to Generals. (The last war in which the Generals led was the one by Argentina against the UK ... and we know how well that turned out.) As it happens, Basil Liddel Hart's book, "On Strategy", captures in greater detail the point you are making.  

That is, a military man's background is sound in a CinC only if he or she can overcome the background and start thinking in Grand Strategy terms.  I have seen nothing in McCain to suggest that that is the case.

LR: "I have just stolen Mo Dowd's shtick".  Yes, we ALL know that.  It's a juvenile and uninteresting play on names when Dowd uses it; it is juvenile, uninteresting AND unoriginal when others use it.  You cry for "civil" behaviour online, and yet time and again you demonstrate yourself incapable of the most elementary act of civility: not making fun of someone's name.  I have brought this to your attention on a number of occasions, but you seem oblivious to it.  Don't expect any civility from anyone, if you continue to behave like a teenage brat.

That's a bit weak Noam.

That McCain CIChief message is a strong one. Sure, Goldfard makes a complete tool of himself by inserting "Al Qaeda" at the end of that, but he has a good point. It's a clear, simple, message that rings true to your average 30 second attention span voter (I proudly include myself in that category).

Obama should avoid the temptation to...avoid National Security. He can be strong on NS, and really should own it. They let Osama off the hook in Afghanistan; diverted troops to Iraq; spent the budget (and then some) on empowering Iran, etc, etc. I mean come on - does anybody on this site not see the disconnect between the WOT rhetoric and opeational reality? No, they don't.

Address this, forcefully, on merit. I'd imagine Peter Beinart's book would be worth reading on this.

Your post is weak. I clicked the link on "not having a dog in this" and got the Kagan's report. So what, they're Repbulicans aren't they? That's a weak partisan point Noam. Turn off the laptop, and have too many beers. A hangover's a great cure for groupthink.

Obama should go for the throat. Make a major speech on NS and let do a Rove on it. They're going to play this hard, and win cycles anyway. Especially with Iran looming large. Get it out of the road, early and use the last few months to hammer domestic issues, just when the media are bored stupid with it.

Sorry Kagan make a tool of himself with that AQ nonsense. We all know that Iraq is far more complex than the minority AQ attacks, right?

Godfarb is just a tool, period.

Desperate stuff from McCain now. Do they really think trying to target Clintonites with praise will overpower Democratic family bonds?

Sad, desperate, encouraging.

Icarusr: Youa re complaining about juvenility out here? Oh, yes, of course, only if it goes against Obambi.

event: precisely, the military tends to teach a monolithic approach to strategy.

LR: I also supported McCain against W in 2000, but found his move to the right exactly the opposite of the principled person I thought he was. Since then, I've actually switched registrations. I've read various assessments of Obama's war position, including Hillary's team's. In my reading, he has always opposed it, and only demurred to my knowledge when it was contrary to the Party position viz Kerry. BTW, he simply didn't answer then saying he didn't have the information that Kerry had, not changed position, despite Bill's best attempts to say otherwise. I daresay however, had that initial statement turned out to be the wrong position, he would not be anywhere near the presidency today.

I'm with Icarusr on the reuse of ad hominem, that hardly excuses it. And your response to him only reinforces the point.

Dbhuff: The only sin out here is ad Obamanum.

LR: I think the reason you're catching so much flak of late is that you're so much of a presence.  You're, like, the first commenter after every freaking post on these blogs, even when you don't have anything much to add.  Though you do sometimes have worthwhile things to say, your omnipresence is a little grating--and a little weird.   Now I know I can't go too far in this direction, glass houses and all that, but mightn't it be a good idea for you to cool it a little?  I mean, if a post seems trivial, instead of jumping right in to say, "Noam (or Michael, or Dayo, or Eve) this post is beneath your and TNR's usual high standards," couldn't you maybe for once just let it go?

"I predict that if Obama becomes president, such a withdrawal will not happen."

So does Obama...