The Occasional Observer

McCain's campaign strength on foreign policy has largely been linked to his correct backing of the surge in Iraq. This was great in the primaries, but will not work in the general election against Obama. Obama will go to a platform of "I was right before you were right", pointing out that while McCain was correct on the surge, if they had listened to Obama in the first place years earlier we wouldn't even be in Iraq now. And based on all polls, that position will resonate far better with the American voters.

How do you get around this? In his victory speech McCain suggested that all candidates should stop "relitigating the decisions of the past" with respect to Iraq, and what is important is who has the experience to make the right decisions going forward. I think this is a tricky position for McCain, because Obama can simply say what good is your experience if it led us into Iraq in the first place? Again, a very dumbed-down argument but exactly the type of soundbite that wins in today's elections.

A potentially winning position, but even more difficult and complex, would be to convince Americans that Obama's vote not to invade Iraq (which was in a solid minority) was a mistake and an example of naivete. If he could somehow point to the evidence available at that time and say it was a mistake not to invade based on what was known THEN, perhaps he could combine that with Obama's willingness to meet foreign leaders unconditionally and paint him as dangerous. But, the problem is that even if McCain is tactically correct on all these points, I'm not sure that's what Americans want to hear. They seem to want to hear rainbow and sunshine stories about foreign and domestic policies, no matter how disconnected they are to the complex realities on the ground.

So in the end, I'm not sure what is the most effective way for McCain to nullify what is surely an enormous strength for Obama, that he was one of just a handful to originally vote against Iraq invasion.