This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.
Klein writes that such a statement is best left to aides rather than the candidate. "It is, shockingly, unpresidential."
Klein is right that McCain had drawn a great hand with the facts on the ground that the surge had accomplished a good deal in settling things down in Iraq. Along with the Sunni Awakening and the Sadrists unilaterally standing down, the US troop surge has truly made Iraq a safer place. He could have played that hand and taken all the chips. He could have successfully painted Obama as a naive idealist who lacked the experience and the mental toughness to lead during wartime.
However, when he gets the facts wrong about the role of the surge, and makes stupid gaffes like the one about the Iraq/Pakistani border (d'oh!), and then makes "scurrilous" off-the-cuff statements like the one above, you have to question whether McCain has the mental stability to be our leader. Of course, some will say they'll take him over "the Muslim" or "the colored [guy]" or just stay at home. That's an ignorant choice and an anti-American one too.
Obama may be a progressive and has some not so keen ideas on taxation, he has better ideas than McSame on ending this immoral war and preventing another one in Iran. To me, this is not the lesser of two evils, but simply the smarter choice. Others, like New York Daily News writer Larry Hunter, a staunch conservative, put it this way last week:
If economic damage from well-intentioned but misbegotten Obama economic schemes is the ransom we must pay him to clean up this foreign policy mess, then so be it. It's not nearly as costly as enduring four more years of what we suffered the last eight years.