LeftHawk

The numbers

2008-10-08T08:09:00.001-07:00

Forty-three percent of voters say Barack Obama's economic and tax plans make them more likely to vote for him, compared with 30% who say this about John McCain and his plans. In fact, more voters say McCain's plan for the economy and taxes makes them less likely to vote for him.

In its Oct. 3-5 poll, Gallup asked a random sample of registered voters nationwide whether each of eight factors -- spanning many of the candidates' important policy differences and background characteristics -- made them more likely or less likely to vote for Obama, or made no difference to their vote. The same eight factors were asked separately in regard to McCain.

Most voters say the candidates' past positions on the Iraq war will influence their vote. In general, voters tend to view Obama's past Iraq war opposition as a plus -- 43% say it makes them more likely to vote for him, tying his economic plan as the voting factor making the biggest positive contribution to the Obama candidacy. With this positive endorsement of Obama's war opposition, it is thus not surprising that McCain's support for the decision to go to war in 2003 is viewed as more of a drawback in voters' minds.

However, the candidates' differing positions on the U.S. troop surge in Iraq work to McCain's benefit. Thirty-eight percent say McCain's support of the 2007 troop surge makes them more likely to vote for him; only 32% cite Obama's opposition to the surge as something that increases their likelihood of voting for him.

In fact, this is the only one of the eight items tested in the poll that appears to be a disadvantage for Obama. On the seven others, more voters say it makes them more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee than say it makes them less likely to do so. This could largely reflect Obama's leading position in the polls at this stage of the campaign.

Race and Age

Both candidates would make history if elected in November, with Obama seeking to become the first black president and McCain the oldest elected to a first term. Voters may not necessarily consider either factor a plus -- lingering racism could cause some voters to cast a ballot against Obama solely on the basis of his race, and some voters may be uncomfortable electing a president as old as McCain to such a demanding job.

The poll finds that age appears to be a much more relevant factor in the vote this year than is race -- at least based on these self-reports.

Relatively few voters say race will be a factor in their vote -- at least 85% say it will make no difference in their decision to support either candidate. The impact of Obama's race has been the focus of much discussion in this campaign. According to what voters say in this poll, his race is actually a net plus. Of the small number of voters who say Obama's race will affect their vote, a slightly higher percentage say his race will make them more likely (9%) rather than less likely (6%) to vote for him. Interestingly, these responses are not significantly different from the percentages who say McCain's race will affect their vote.

Voters are somewhat more likely to factor the candidates' ages into their voting calculus, but in each case a majority say this will not affect their vote (although fewer say it makes no difference in their decision to vote for McCain than in their decision to vote for Obama).

On balance, age is clearly a negative factor for McCain, and a positive one for Obama. Thirty-eight percent of voters say McCain's age makes them less likely to vote for him; only 7% say it makes them more likely. Meanwhile, 24% say Obama's age increases their odds of voting for him, while 9% say it decreases those odds.

That more negative assessment of McCain's age is in large part because of the opinions of Democrats -- a majority of whom say it makes them less likely to support the GOP nominee. Most independents and Republicans say his age makes no difference to their vote.

The Running Mates

The poll suggests that, overall, Joe Biden does more to help the Democratic ticket than Sarah Palin does the Republican ticket. Thirty-seven percent of voters say Obama's selection of Biden as his vice-presidential running mate makes them more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate, compared with 19% who say it makes them less likely to do so. By 41% to 33%, voters say McCain's choice of Palin makes them less likely to vote for the Republicans in November.

Even so, Palin appears to be doing more to fire up her party's natural supporters than Biden is doing to motivate the Democratic base. Sixty-five percent of Republicans say Palin's presence on the ticket makes them more likely to vote for McCain, compared with 57% of Democrats who say Obama's choice of Biden makes them more likely to vote for Obama.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 926 registered voters, aged 18 and older, conducted Oct. 3-5, 2008. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

McCain's New Negativity

2008-10-06T12:14:00.003-07:00

I'll say it straight out--the "new" McCain--the sarcastic, eye-brow raising, eye-rolling, spoiled upset schoolgirl McCain--the snarky guy who won't look his opponent in the eye, condescends, picks unqualified (dare I say dangerously unqualified) running mates in the eleventh hour despite his supposed commitment to our national security--this new John McCain is not the same man he used to be.

Even if he is, there's no way for him to shift back now. He's committed to his new vision of America. That vision now includes Sarah Palin. I say, if you can't have a press conference, and you can't handle an interview with Katie Couric (those issues-based questions are actually gotcha questions, as though our candidates can't handle gotcha questions even if the rather mundane Couric questioning were gotcha-esque which it wasn't) then you can't run a country.

Palin can't run a country, and quite frankly, I love America and don't want it run into the ground by this reckless GOP ticket. We are facing a critical choice. It wasn't even so critical before the RNC convention, prior to the Palin pick. McCain is (or was) a decent, moderate politician. Now, I think he's lost his way. He's committed us to a trajectory that is at once dangerous and foolish.

I would say this election is far more important than the last two. Electing the GOP back in to power will spell the end of America as we know it.

Jumping Ship...

2008-09-26T14:23:00.005-07:00

Conservatives are abandoning Palin, not for her ideology (though it is abhorrent) but rather for her lack of not just experience, but quality. She is simply not the smart, decisive leader they thought she might be, sort of...

Here's Rod Dreher on the following clip:

New Palin excerpt up, in which she discusses why having Russia next to Alaska gives her relevant foreign policy experience. I am well and truly embarrassed for her. I think she's a good woman who might well be a great governor of Alaska. But good grief, just watch this train wreck:

McCain Wins Debate!

2008-09-26T11:40:00.004-07:00

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for this one...

I guess the ad people at the McCain campaign just got overly eager. What does "wins debate" even mean? Is it ever that...simple? Is this black or white world the preferred world of the GOP?

The Washington Post writes:

"McCain Wins Debate!" declares the ad which features a headshot of a smiling McCain with an American flag background. Another ad spotted by our eagle-eyed observer featured a quote from McCain campaign manager Rick Davis declaring: "McCain won the debate-- hands down."

McCain Out of the Race

2008-09-24T14:53:00.002-07:00

McCain has officially ended his bid for the Presidency.

Sound too good to be true?

Well, yeah, it is. He's just "suspending it" and asking that Obama do the same. Oh, and he's also calling off the debates, to which his opponent responds:

"It's my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person will be the next president," Obama said. "It is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once. It's more important than ever to present ourselves to the American people."

McCain's motives don't exactly strike me as honest.

In fact, this smacks of a losing campaign. Indeed, it was Obama who first, privately, called for non-partisanship, then waited for a response, and then got side-lined by McCain's announcement.

The two presidential campaigns have issued competing timelines of events today leading up to McCain’s call to cancel the debates. Here is Obama’s version:

“At 8:30 this morning, Senator Obama called Senator McCain to ask him if he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal and urging Congress and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a proposal. At 2:30 this afternoon, Senator McCain returned Senator Obama’s call and agreed to join him in issuing such a statement. The two campaigns are currently working together on the details.”

Shortly after, the McCain campaign released their version:

“Senator Obama phoned Senator McCain at 8:30 am this morning but did not reach him. The topic of Senator Obama’s call to Senator McCain was never discussed. Senator McCain was meeting with economic advisers and talking to leaders in Congress throughout the day prior to calling Senator Obama. At 2:30 pm, Senator McCain phoned Senator Obama and expressed deep concern that the plan on the table would not pass as it currently stands. He asked Senator Obama to join him in returning to Washington to lead a bipartisan effort to solve this problem.”

A spokesman for McCain also said the campaign is suspending all political activities, including fund-raising and advertising.

Scenes from India

2008-09-24T11:26:00.002-07:00

Lovely photos from India at the Boston Globe.

Stop Islamic Law in the UK

2008-09-23T13:07:00.004-07:00

Well, I'm not in the UK, but what if I'd like to become an ex-pat some day?

Jihad Watch has the link. Go sign it if you have a wife, perhaps a daughter, or have any compassion for women in general. They're the ones who suffer most under Sharia.

Or perhaps you're a woman. That might hit even closer to home.

Or perhaps you're Muslim, but sickened to death by the Salafists. This encroachment effects you as well, and the reputation of the Muslim world.

Will we let the theocrats take over?

Payback

2008-09-23T12:57:00.004-07:00

Hat Tip: But, I Am A Liberal!

Says "Sarko the American:"

Those responsible for the global financial crisis should be punished, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said, calling for more world leaders to recognize the seriousness of the situation.
"Today millions of people around the world are fearful of losing their nest eggs, their apartments, their savings in banks," Sarkozy said at a dinner Monday where he was awarded the Elie Wiesel Foundation's Humanitarian Award.
"We must provide them with clear answers. Who is responsible for this disaster. That those responsible will be held accountable and punished and that we government leaders will assume our responsibilities," he said without specifying those responsible.
"If we don't speak clearly, we won't create a stable world," he said in front of more than 800 guests including many French and American business leaders.
"Maybe the most helpful thing that could be done today is if world leaders accepted the seriousness of the situation and spoke frankly on these topics about which one should not compromise," said Sarkozy.
The French president has been largely silent since the financial crisis struck Wall Street last week, but was expected to touch on the subject in his speech before the UN General Assembly on Tuesday.
He plans to speak about instilling morals into capitalism by focusing more on development than speculation, aides to Sarkozy said.
The French president spoke on Monday with Tim Geithner, president of the US Federal Reserve Bank of New York, about the 700-billion-dollar bailout the US Treasury has proposed to Congress to rescue the US financial system.

I agree. If we let these crooks go free, we're doing Americans and the world a huge injustice. And if Congress goes through with a no-strings-attached bail-out, they should be held to the fire as well.

NeoConstant has an opinion piece up from the free-market perspective, but Kain sounds unsure:

But my struggle comes down to this: Can we successfuly weather a change away from Government interference? Business seems only too happy to ask Government to step out of their way, while at the same time expecting a hand-out, favorable policies, subsidies, and eventually bail-outs. In other words, Big Business seems to want to have its cake and eat it, too. They want the Government out of the way (or in a “support” role) until their scams run amock and then they come running to the Government–and to the taxpayers–to give them their corporate welfare check to the tune of, this time, $700 billion dollars.

I would have to say "no." We can't weather it. The days of free-market capitalism are dead or dying. This doesn't mean we can't have to utterly socialize, but we can't keep going like this. We just can't. We need more regulations, or at least safeguards, not fewer. Obviously there was some element of this spawned by the wrong regulations. Perhaps a few banks were forced into giving bad loans by the Community Reinvestment Act that Ron Paul decries.

But I say this was a climate of greed and too few oversights were in place to disrupt it.

What Does $700 Billion Dollars Mean to You?

2008-09-22T22:05:00.002-07:00

Because to, that much money is almost inconceivable. What's more inconceivable is the fact that our government seems so excited to just go hand it over to greedy, corrupt businesses in some sort of panicky, fearful buy-up of utterly worthless mortgages.

Any plan to make the mortgages less worthless, anybody? Perhaps a plan to allow the borrowers of said mortgages to actually pay them back within their means? I mean, wouldn't that solve this whole kerfuffle? If the lenders could get their money, and the borrowers could keep their homes, then everyone would be happy.

Oh yeah, and the tax payers. They could keep their money. Perhaps the only ones who should lose anything in this whole mess are the greedy criminals responsible. They should lose their jobs.

One finds themselves agreeing with the oddest assortment of people on this issue...

...and fortunately, glancing at CNN it does look like members of both parties are starting to ask questions. That's something, isn't it?

Imagine a Privatized Social Security After Last Week

2008-09-20T21:59:00.000-07:00

Why I Dislike Palin

2008-09-19T20:42:00.004-07:00

So let's talk about this comic.

As a leftist I admit I nevertheless find no home amongst the "green" movement. Whether or not global warming is real isn't the question, it's whether or not it's us that are causing it, and how. And as an avid believer in science and the scientific method, I just don't see that we have substantial proof that CO2 is the culprit. I'm not about to accept something on FAITH alone. That would put me in the same camp as the fundamentalists--you know, the creationists and the anti-gay-rights crowd? The Palins of the world (no offense to Michael Palin).

You see, global warming is to so many on the Left an act of faith. I've rarely spoken to anyone who knows anything on the subject beyond Al Gore's fancy slide show. They know so very little, yet believe so very ardently. How faith-like...

Essentially the above comic assumes that all liberals, all leftists, etc. must be hand-in-hand on all these things, which is utterly ludicrous.

But it's just a comic.

When it comes to being green, I say let's pump more money into the mythical 100mpg vehicles, and let's build more rail, more mass transit, and new urbanist cities--walkable cities. But let's still drill where we can. Let's not start depending too much on places like Nigeria, who care not at all for the environment or worker's rights, or safety standards. Let's drill ourselves, with our higher standards.

Then let's build some more top-notch technology. Let's put our tax dollars to work getting more students into science programs, hi-tech degrees, all that. I'm not worried about jobs floating overseas, so long as we're making sure that we have the money invested in our students, so that new, better, hi-end jobs can replace older, out-dated jobs that migrate elsewhere.

I see this as a larger vision, and it will take a visionary leader to achieve any of it (and this is just a morsel of the many things we need to do aside from whine and moan over global warming and so forth). I think Obama has it. He has vision, and that is a critical factor.

Palin, on the other hand, has religion. I'm not against religion, per say, but the sort that Palin seems at home with is not the vision I want for America--one in which science is defunded, education takes a back seat, and so on and so forth.

I could give a damn about her grandbaby to be. I just don't like the vision of America that she holds dear. I think we can do so much better.

Young Earth Creationist

2008-09-19T15:18:00.004-07:00

Unless you want your next VP (and possibly President) to make Bush look like a veritable Agnostic by comparison, you really ought to think about voting for Obama/Biden in November.

According to Ed Brayton, Palin is not just "open to the idea" of creationism being discussed in Public Schools, she actually pushed for it in Wasila. She's a young-earth creationist, who believes that the Earth is less than 7,000 years old, and that humans and dinasaurs used to dine together in the garden of Eden.

So, if you want America to continue to slide backward while Asia and Europe invest in Science and Technology, vote for the Creationist, Palin.

McCain, I have no doubt, believes in evolution. So why oh why would he pick Palin for his VP? It flies in the face of reason...

Spooky.

Was Palin a Strategic Disaster?

2008-09-19T12:37:00.000-07:00

Noam Sheiber at TNR seems to think so. I agree.

I think McCain's only hope is to shift the topic back to national security--or to pray for some external development (or some Bush administration monkey-business) that does it for him. According to the Times, "Forty-eight percent said Mr. Obama was prepared enough to be president, compared with 71 percent who rated Mr. McCain as adequately prepared."

But, of course, it would have been much easier to press that advantage if his running mate weren't in her second year as governor of Alaska.

Palin is a swing and a miss to this campaign precisely because McCain can't go back to his national security policies with any credibility anymore. And while experience may be balanced out between the tickets, as Jonathan Chait points out:

Engagement, not experience, is the difference between Palin's qualifications and Obama's. Obama has a longstanding interest in national and (to a lesser extent) international issues, and has answered questions on all those issues in extensive detail. Palin has dealt almost exclusively with parochial issues in a wildly atypical state.

Essentially, Palin's popularit is crumbling around her. Independents are starting to realize that much of what drew them to her in the first place--her charisma, what appeared to be a no-nonsense reform agenda--is all a lot of smoke and mirrors.

Shallow and Demagogic

2008-09-19T10:44:00.000-07:00

The undecided voters are souring on Palin. For me, a Lieberman pick could have meant a McCain vote. McCain/Lieberman would have meant true bi-partisanship and a real desire to keep America safe and strong. But Palin?

She may have "revitalized" the base, but she's a slap in the face for us indies, lefty hawks, and moderates everywhere.

Now, I don't buy into much of the pseudo-slander that bloggers like Andrew Sullivan (whom I admire, but come on Andrew!) are writing about Palin. I simply don't like that she's so unqualified to be President, based not so much on experience, but lack of talent and intellect.

As one blogger wrote, initially enthused about Palin (for similar reasons I was enthused though my initial attraction to Palin's supposed Libertarianism wore off quickly as I got to know here better):

But now I have more . . . experience with Governor Palin. And pretty much everything she has said or done since her appearance on the national stage – beginning with her acceptance speech – has soured me on her. It’s decreasingly plausible to me that she’s who I thought she was when she was nominated. Based on her performance on the campaign trail so far, she’s a shallow and demagogic politician.

Shallow and demagogic is right--and her dissinterest in foreign affairs, a topic so dear to my heart, so vital to the Presidency, and (one would think) so important to the McCain platform, is downright angering to me.

McCain, where have you gone? The old McCain we knew and loved (sort of) is not the candidate we see before us.

Palin: She Isn't That Smart People

2008-09-18T11:55:00.006-07:00

She may be an effective local politician, and Sarah Palin has certainly had some lucky breaks in Alaskan politics, but let's face it, she's simply not that smart. She's no Obama, no Biden, and no McCain for that matter.

She's certainly no Hillary Clinton.

Thank God for the Dutch

2008-09-18T11:55:00.005-07:00

My faith in Europe is always low. Save for the Brits and the Dutch.

Anne Applebaum writes of one Dutch company currently serving in Afghanistan. Few have fought harder or more bravely than the Dutch there.

Afghanistan is bigger than Iraq, more rugged, more impoverished, and vastly more complicated, with more languages, more ethnic groups, more tribes, and more lethal neighbors. It has only begun to test our stamina.

McCain "flailing"

2008-09-18T11:55:00.004-07:00

First the mistake that is Palin. And I say this not as a critic of her domestic agenda, which I disagree with, nor her familial flaws, which I can (I suppose) relate to. No, I say Palin was a flawed choice because she has not one ounce of foreign policy knowledge or experience.

So that's the first mistake--or at least the first one that is likely to haunt McCain from now on until November. Forget the seven houses. Forget the rest. Palin is going to be the achilles heel here, and if you don't believe me, just watch the polls--and especially her popularity, as it droops, falters, and then finally...collapses.

Joe Klein writes that McCain is "flailing" now in what is increasingly appearing to be a campaign beyond his control. (The title of Klein's article is "Incoherence" which I think is fitting). For every gain he made with Palin, even the trade-off allowing him to move back toward the center, toward a "populist" approach, he has taken harder hits due to the country's apprehension over Palin's inexperience. Of course, Obama has very little experience himself, but the country has had time to listen to him speak, debate--they've read his policies. They know and understand, at least on a reasonable level, what to expect. Or at least, they think they do.

Palin is an open question.

Of course, McCain isn't helping the matter at all.

Writes Klein:

First, the economic fundamentals are sound. Then we're in a major crisis. He talks about the excessive compensation that CEOs receive, but continues to have Carly Fiorina ($100 million for her failed stewardship of Hewlett Packard) as an economic spokesperson. He wants to have a vigorous new regulatory regime patrolling Wall Street--even though he has always opposed such a regime and his pal Phi Gramm was the guy in charge of dynamiting the regulations--and yet he is running this ad, warning against excessive federal power.

Could this be due to the fact that McCain has almost no sense of the economy whatsoever? Or perhaps he has strayed too far from his moderate economics of the past, in which he favored regulation, opposed irresponsible tax cuts, and is now just pandering full steam ahead to please the conservative base? In fact, I'd say a great deal of the fiscal conservatives are likely scared off as much by McCain as by Obama. The very rich may enjoy the notion of not repealing the Bush tax cuts, but many in the middle class worry his health care plan would be a disaster.

Middle-range estimates suggest that initially this change will have little impact on the number of uninsured people, although within five years this number will likely grow as the value of the tax credit falls relative to rising health care costs. Moving toward a relatively unregulated nongroup market will tend to raise costs, reduce the generosity of benefits, and leave people with fewer consumer protections.

Conservatives must be feeling the pinch. Michelle Malkin has once again resorted to blasting Michelle Obama. Apparently she feels it's somehow inappropriate or "mean" to make jabs at Palin. Well, I would be surprised to see her point out her own team's jabs the other direction, since she's quite the queen of bad-mouthing herself.

Of course, therein lies her charm.

I still think McCain has strong defense credentials. But other than that, his proposed policies are lousy. His tax policies and health care plan are certain to be a disaster. If he thinks less regulation is the answer to the current crisis, and yet supports the bailouts we've recently seen, then he truly did mean what he said when he confessed to not knowing a thing about economics.

So don't believe him, ladies and gentlemen, when he says the fundamentals of the economics are strong. They may not be as doom and gloom as many in the media would have you believe--but strong is a stretch.

Biden on Darfur

2008-09-18T11:55:00.003-07:00

"I would use American force now," Biden said at a hearing before his committee. "I think it's not only time not to take force off the table. I think it's time to put force on the table and use it."

Michael Crowley discusses Joe Biden's hawkish positions including this one on Darfur as compared to the less aggressive policy of Obama, and wonders how these two will gel...

I like Biden for this very reason. He's got a good sense of American power and the necessity of keeping America's military strong. I'm also an advocate of ending genocide wherever it emerges. We can't very well talk about equal rights and fair taxes and all that while sitting on our hands as people in Darfur are slaughtered.

Darfur is such a massive problem, and so easily swept outside our consience. Richard Just warns that "it is too soon to succumb to a retrospective spirit, and to busy ourselves only with learning the right lessons for the next genocide, which will surely come. The suffering in Darfur is not yet yesterday's news."

No, indeed. Darfur is happening today. The question is, when and if Obama and Biden take the White House, will Biden's advocation of force become policy?

Traditional, Liberal Zionism

2008-09-18T11:55:00.002-07:00

Leonard Fein discusses uncertainty for the Zionist Left--"abandoned" by virtually everyone:

Well, look: though pocked with imperfections, some no cosmetics can mask, the record’s hardly one of unrelieved bungling. There are grace notes galore and much to admire: freedom of speech, the rule of law, distinguished science, and an ongoing effort to balance the twin imperatives of the Jewish understanding—on the one hand, the claims of the tribe; on the other the claims of the whole world; on the one hand, the particular; on the other, the universal.

Fein's position is not altogether bleak. It's an article worth reading. Nuanced, if not altogether accurate. "We" are not all doves. We are sometimes misunderstood hawks. We can still be in favor of a strong Israeli military and also against the continued settlements and the extremists in Israel. We can be pro-Israel and anti-Israeli-extremist and still be in favor of a strong defense against the radical Palestinian and other Arab elements (and Iran).

And what of the liberal Zionists?...We do what we can to promote a genuine two-state solution and to reverse those policies of the Israeli government—settlements especially though not exclusively—that stand in its way, thereby evoking rebuke and sometimes condemnation from the mainstream. We insist that “pro-Israel” has many shades of meaning and cannot be a term reserved for the most hawkish of Israel’s supporters.

This is a good point--though again, I bristle somewhat to think that one must be a dove to be a liberal. That one can be for universal human rights, fairness in society and the economy, a peaceful two-state solution and still be insistent on strong defense is quite possible. I am quite sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, but I fear their worst enemy is the terrorist. Settlers may exacerbate the problem, but the terrorist is still the most substantial roadblock to peace.

Obama vs. Palin on Foreign Policy

2008-09-18T11:55:00.000-07:00

Christopher Hitchens writes of Pakistan:

Sen. Barack Obama has, if anything, been the more militant of the two presidential candidates in stressing the danger here and the need to act without too much sentiment about our so-called Islamabad ally. He began using this rhetoric when it was much simpler to counterpose the "good" war in Afghanistan with the "bad" one in Iraq.

Never mind that now; he is committed in advance to a serious projection of American power into the heartland of our deadliest enemy. And that, I think, is another reason why so many people are reluctant to employ truthful descriptions for the emerging Afghan-Pakistan confrontation: American liberals can't quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he's ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less.

More protracted war, yes. The anti-war Left, the isolationist Right, and the rest of the Doves will not like this. But I see Obama's position not just as more war, but smarter war.

This is one area I've been rather impressed with Obama--his willingness not simply to present Afghanistan as the "good" war, but to also engage in the possibility of moving into Pakistan, something that is looking far, far more likely these days.

The experience debate rages on between McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden. Well let's assume that McCain and Biden factor each other out. They are both rather hawkish, experienced, knowledgeable men. They were both for the Iraq War, and both invested time and energy in coming up with a solution to the failed strategy that embodied the first four years of that war.

So neither really counts.

Now let's look at what's left. On the one hand Obama. On the other Palin.

I'm well aware of the tasteless editing of ABC and Mr. Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin. Even so, her answers on foreign affairs were abysmal at best. At worst, her responses (combined with her complete lack of resume, or seeming interest in anything other than domestic issues) were downright frightening.

Obama, on the other hand, has been grilled on this quite extensively, both in the primaries and on many interviews, including what was almost, but not quite, hostile territory on the Factor with Bill O'Reilly.

On the foreign policy front, Obama has convinced me that he is tough but cautious. He rose up quickly because he vehemently opposed the Iraq war. But now I see a man who understands the victory that has taken place in Iraq. I don't believe he wants to screw that up. I could be wrong.

And of course, Obama has made some brilliant remarks regarding his foreign policy vision, which is so much more complex and visionary than anything Palin has to offer...

We must lead by building a 21st century military to ensure the security of our people and advance the security of all people. We must lead by marshalling a global effort to stop the spread of the world’s most dangerous weapons. We must lead by building and strengthening the partnerships and alliances necessary to meet our common challenges and defeat our common threats.

So, all things being factored equally--McCain and Biden offsetting one another--and Obam clearly pulling ahead of Palin, from my point of view the Obama/Biden ticket is the better choice for a new American century of democracy and freedom for all people.

Obviously deeper analysis of both Senator McCain and Senator Obama's foreign policies are in order, but just skimming the surface of this debate makes it quite clear, that while McCain is often right on foreign policy issues, his opponent is too. And their running mates are far disparate in terms of quality and foreign policy know-how.

~LeftHawk