AS doesn't deny it exists. Nor does he reject it ... (How universal a campaign is one that claims "our time has come"? Who's time is that, exactly?).
But the strongest case for Obama is not emotional; it is as coolly rational as he is. I tried to express it in my "Goodbye To All That" essay. On the most critical issues we face - Iraq, the war against Jihadism, healthcare, and the economy - he makes more sense as a president than Clinton. And when you watch the knee-jerk opposition to him, I think it is actually more emotional and less rational than the support for him. Fear is more emotional than hope.
There was nothing in that article to support such a contention, that I remember. AS's contentionin that article that Baracks' face would itself affect jihadis in Lahore was ... grasping at straws, at best (at a minimum, al-qa'ida remains active in Africa, through various sub-groups, right?).
... to represent that Bill's experience in the Oval and with the Pentagon and the massive, worldwide Clinton diplomatic rolodex is the same as Obama's is a true slight of hand.
If you listened to Obama's speech before the VFW, as I did because I was very much looking at the time, you didn't find a lot of substance to back up these claims. One didn't find a nuanced and commanding vision of where the US is going on national defense. It was mildly disappointing, frankly.To boil everything down to one Obama speech against the Iraqi invasion is a bit much.
To be sure, Hillary herself hasn't laid out a RAND-worthy new vision for national security, for the so-called Long War (that I know). They both gave inadequate remarks (in my view) to the question about responding to a possible rogue nuclear attack on U.S. soil, during one of the debates.
But still, to represent that Bill's experience in the Oval and with the Pentagon and the massive, worldwide Clinton diplomatic rolodex is the same as Obama's is a true slight of hand.
