The Ayres story is a 2.0 on a 10.0 richter scale. Interesting, but not dispositive.

I have two principled objections to Obama: the redistributive aspects of his tax plan, and tax money for abortion.

I agree with you to a point on Bush and Iraq. I favored the war, was ho-hum on democratization, and by 2006 desperately wanted to see us get our infantry out, regardless of consequence. I see in hindsight that the entire war was a mistake.

Here is another argument for McCain. I see him as an American DeGaulle - strong yet practical (e.g., the French pull-out from Algeria). During the first debate, McCain offered a much more refined view on Iran than Obama, suggesting a "league of democracies" to impose sanctions as an end run around Russia and China, who would object in the UN. Obama seemed not to get it, and suggestd lamely that Russia and China should be involved too. The world is tougher than I think Barack realizes.

Second, McCain has been much more nuanced about cross-border incursions into Pakistan. I think he knows something we don't, about the fragility of the government and risk of proliferation. Recall, in 1960 it was Kennedy who out-hawked Nixon on Cuba, suggesting a full fledged invasion while Nixon counseled caution. After Kennedy won, his hawkish position got him fried. Obama now is the one talking cross-border attacks into Pakistan, without any note of caution. I think the Bay of Pigs would teach us that caution is in order - the more I think about it, the more I like McCain's position.

By your reasoning, we would never intervene anywhere: Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq. Because every intervention carries the risk of a debacle. Are you a pure isolationist? What is your foresight - not hindsight - guide for *good* interventions and bad ones? Recall, Madeline Albright and other veterans of the Clinton interventions all favored the Iraq War too, at the outset.

Take Iran, for example. Both McCain and Obama say they will not be permitted to have a nuclear bomb. Interesting, because they certainly seem to be building one.

McCain is thinking proactively about how to sanction them outside the UN, and thus avoid war. Obama is stuck on his direct diplomacy theme, which is fine as a political campaign tactic in reaction to perceived Bush unilateralism, but highly unlikely to affect real change in Iranian behavior.

Same thing with the surge. McCain learned everything he could about Iraq through hearings and visits, and staked out his position. Obama, as far as I can tell, simply followed the prevailing winds. (Same was true in 2002, when he told his uber-liberal south side of Chicago constituents he opposed the war).

Foreign policy is tough. If you simply accept conventional wisdom, and focus on the latest news cycle, it is even tougher.

I am not an expert on DeGaulle, by any means, by I am aware of how difficult he was as an ally for the British. The most burdensome cross to bear of all, one of their officers was said to have remarked. That in turn reminds me of Montgomery, another insufferable product of that generation. After a German surrendered to him at a dinner outside Cairo, Churchill announced the event to parliament and asked his listeners to feel some pity for the German. After all, he said, "I too have dined with Montgomery." And, if you like a more Hollywood example, look at the movie "The Queen," which compares Elizabeth II's stodgy stoicism with the chaotic modern world around her.

McCain, in his perennial battles with conservatives, has driven them half-crazy. Poor George Will, who writes against McCain more than any other subject, exhibits the same symptoms.

The man is a rock. I don't know if it's generational, or the POW experience. Maybe both. I would much rather have him in command of my own flesh and blood than either Obama or Biden.

And as for Algeria, no one but DeGaulle could have brought the pied noir home and survived it politically. Same with Nixon in China. Look at Petreus, and his recent plan to work with the Taliban. I don't know if that's wise, but no one but him (or McCain) would have the credibility to do it. That creditibility will be valuable in foreign affairs - unlike, say, Kennedy or LBJ in Vietnam, who constantly feared being called a *chicken.*

My biggest beef with Obama, in terms of foreign policy, relates to his approach to Israel. I would not feel the same way, incidentally, if an American politician expressly campaigned on a more Arabist plank, and called for less aid for Israel. If that person won, we would know what we're getting.

Obama is different, for lots of reasons I discussed on other posts. He's from the south side of Chicago, a hotbed of black anti-semitism. His pastor gives out awards to Louis Farrakhan and sermonizes that Israeli treatment of Palestinians was the world's greatest misfortunate since World War II. Jesse Jackson, who calls himself a de facto member of Barack's family, says Barack will drive the "Zionist influence" out of Washington. Now, we have this story about Barack dining with Palestinian radicals while a child reads a poem to complain of Israeli "terrorism."

Question. How in the world is a man with this background going to lead our pro-Israeli nation? I'm sure it's not impossible, but it certainly creates conflicts. I prefer a man like John McCain who shares the nation's sentiments which guide our foreign policy.