For most of my adult life, Democratic politicians — especially Presidential candidates — have adopted a "Republican light" approach to foreign policy, with an eye towards looking just as "tough" and "strong" as the Republicans.

Without a doubt, this is why John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton voted for authorizing the Iraq war in 2002. They didn’t want to look like wimps in 2004 or 2008 as Presidential candidates.

One of the reasons so many of us like Barack Obama is that he hasn’t fallen into that trap. He has shown you could oppose the Iraq war — strongly, consistently, without wavering — and be just as strong an advocate for our national interests and our national defense as those supporting the war. If not stronger, indeed.

With his vigorous response to McCain and Bush today, he demonstrates again that strength, and why he is more fit to be C-in-C than either McCain or Clinton, both of whom marched lockstep with Bush in 2002 and 2003:

George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for. They have to
explain why we are now entering our sixth year of war in Iraq. We were
supposed to be going over there for weapons of mass destruction that we
never found. We were told that it was going to last a few months and
cost a few billion dollars. We have now spent over 600 billion dollars.
Thousands of lives lost, and we have not been made more safe. They’re
going to have to explain the fact that Osama bin Laden is still at
large and is sending out videotapes with impunity. They need to answer
for the fact that al Qaeda’s leadership is stronger than ever because
we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan. They’ve got to answer for
the fact that Iran is the greatest strategic beneficiary of our
invasion in Iraq. It made Iran stronger. George Bush’s policies.
They’re going to have to explain why Hamas now controls Gaza, Hamas
that was strengthened because the United States insisted that we should
have democratic elections in the Palestinian authority. They’re going
to have to explain why it is that Iran is able to fund Hezbollah and
poses the greatest threat to the United States and Israel in the Middle
East in a generation.

That’s the Bush-McCain record on protecting this country. Those are
the failed policies that John McCain wants to double down on, because
he still hasn’t spelled out one substantial way in which he’d be
different from George Bush when it comes to foreign policy.

That’s the key line: George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for. The more he can say that between now and November, the more stunning and substantial his victory will be. Because, in the end, they do have a lot to answer for with the most disastrous foreign policy misadventure in a century.

Will the real McCain please stand up?

Is it the Dick Cheney-wannabe, who yesterday pandered to a gaggle of radical right-wing bloggers, saying Obama was unfit to be President. He claimed — a claim that was an outrageous lie — that Obama wanted to negotiate with Hamas.

Or is it Senator McCain of Davos, the man desperate to cozy up with European political and media elites talking of his own willingness to sit down with Hamas.

The story here, from a James Rubin op-ed (Mr. Rubin is a strong Hillary Clinton supporter) in yesterday’s Washington Post:

Two years ago, just after Hamas won the
Palestinian parliamentary elections, I interviewed McCain for the
British network Sky News’s "World News Tonight" program. Here is the
crucial part of our exchange:

I asked: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating
the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government
if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCain answered: "They’re the government; sooner or later we are
going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand
why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy
towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things
that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it’s a new
reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security
and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

For some Europeans in Davos, Switzerland, where the interview took
place, that’s a perfectly reasonable answer. But it is an unusual if
not unique response for an American politician from either party. And
it is most certainly not how the newly conservative presumptive
Republican nominee would reply today. (emphasis added)

Some enterprising blogger ought to get and post that footage of Senator McCain of Davos, desperately seeking the approval of folks like Tom Friedman and Joe Klein. Might be our "windsurfing" video of 2008.

UPDATE — of course, turns out the Jed Report already has the footage:

Some candidates, when they run for President, do indeed lose their bearings. Their thirst for power and glory becomes so overwhelming they forget who they are, what they stand for.

We’ve seen it with one candidate in the Democratic primary, and now we’re seeing it with the supposedly-maverick and independent John McCain. As an Obama supporter, one of the things I’m most proud of is that he’s kept his cool, and mostly stayed true to his cause and his beliefs. Here’s his response to McCain and Bush:

So the Bush-McCain-Lieberman trio are at it, with a coordinated attack today on Obama.

Here is McCain’s hit job. He says today:

"I think [it] is an unacceptable position, and shows that Senator Obama does not have the knowledge, the experience, the background to make the kind of judgments that are necessary to preserve this nation’s security."

I say, bring it. Let’s have that discussion about who has "the background to make the kind of judgments that are necessary to preserve this nation’s security."

For example, let’s talk a bit about McCain’s ongoing, steady, unwavering support for the most disastrous foreign intervention in our country’s history. Wherein we diverted resources from Afghanistan, and our fight against Bin Laden and Al Queda, to invade and occupy Iraq instead on false pretenses and premises.

Let’s talk about that judgment.

Or his unwavering support for a Bush economic regime that has weakened us from within. A set of policies that have made us debtors to a series of nations — China, Russia, and the Opec powers most prominently — who may have strategic reasons to accumulate our debt, and use it in ways not in our national interest.

While we’re at it, let’s talk about some history. Does John McCain now denounce and reject Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Harry Truman? The first pair met with Mao Zedong, the second with Josef Stalin, both the biggest mass murderers of the 20th century (and maybe ever) with nuclear arsenals pointed our way. Was "talking" with them a sign they didn’t have the knowledge or experience necessary to be President or in charge of our foreign affairs?

Let’s talk about John McCain, the false prophet of decency and moderation. With today’s rant, people of even moderate intelligence will now know he’s just another Republican scare-monger, with his bag of well-worn set of scare tactics dating back to Joe McCarthy.

Today, John McCain showed us who he really is. He’s not some moderate-friendly Republican, a maverick with a streak of decency. No Chuck Hagel, he.

No, when it comes to governing, McCain will be just another version of Dick Cheney, but one dressed up for public consumption and media idolatry with some pseudo-straight talk and appearance of access.