Not just a painful thought for some Lefties, but for some of us libertarian-inclined Republicans, like myself, who were (past tense) planning on voting Obama. He had seemed to be open to more independent thoughts on Israel, but recent interviews indicate that's not at all so. He had seemed to want to support countries where the more "tolerant" forms of Islam still remained (though in threat) while deemphasizing supporting the Bush Islamic allies that also happen to be state sponsors of terror (most notably Saudi Arabia and Pakistan), yet recently he's been talking about how we need to give more money for schools in Pakistan! And besides positions, there's similarity w/Bush on Constitution-threatening approaches. Obama, for ex, ended up supporting FISA/telcom immunity while also suggesting he'd continue with the Bush trend of increased executive powers. He's even out-Bushed Bush on his faith-based plans. Contrast is gone, Vice Presidential choices are going to be more critical than ever, not just b/c of McCain's near-life-expectancy age or Obama being an assassination magnet, but because many of us find neither candidate attractive and are considering voting third party/write-in unless something tips us one way or the other.

I think Mead is right. Obama is careful to hug the status quo in the Middle East. Which is terrible, if you think that consensus is wrong-headed.

Obama's 'just war' views on Afghanistan are not only wrong- headed, but painfully neglect the woeful history of imperial (British) and quasi-imperial (Soviet) adventurism in that part of the world. As the NYT reports today the Pakistani secret service (our allies??) has been basically undermining peacemaking efforts, supporting Taliban extremists and may even have had a hand in the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul. What's Prez Obama going to do if India decides to get involved in Afghanistan as well? Obama clings to the consensus on these topics because to stick his neck out and do something creative would be courting mockery from the right....something he can't afford at the moment. If Obama thinks he has a way of dealing with Afghanistan that is 'outside the box' of the current failing approach he better speak up soon because chaos is looming and the coalition of the willing is losing its will. Last week's near victory by the Taliban against the Marines got lost in the news cycle.....think about it. That's more than five years into the war and they almost kicked us off that mountain. The Soviet adventure in Afghanistan proved several things: those guys will never give up, they have friends with deep pockets (our Saudi 'allies'), and hundeds of millions of narco-dollars. Does Obama have the will for a war of attrition in Afghanistan? Will America stand behind him? I doubt it, hence his move to the center. In the end the US doesn't have a clue what to do in the Middle East or Central Asia (never did and never will...Prez Obama should fire the entire Middle East departments of State and the CIA immediately)....better to get out now and let the Israelis handle things as best they can which is our default policy anyway....just keep a kind thought for the Palestinians who will also get the boot by default as well.

Also, saying you're disillusioned with Obama over the FISA bill and that thus you will be voting McCain is so ridiculous it makes my heard hurt.

Ok, so Obama has seemed to go along with the "bipartisan consensus" on the middle east. Were people expecting him to preach death to Israel? Or death to Palestine? I'm not sure what these folks were expecting, but a presidential campaign is all about appealing to the most people possible. While there will be some like these commenters that are angry every time Obama seems Centered, a vast majority of Americans wanted reassurance, out of somewhat legitimate concern or mostly just ignorant fear (of what I'm not sure, maybe actually having affordable healthcare?), that Obama would be more centrist and not a "socialist". Just think back to 2004. I personally was very upset with the way Kerry ran his campaign. Besides his dryness and poor swing state strategy, his lack of ability to appeal to the masses killed his campaign. I am a true cynic, but I believe Obama can beat McCain. It is moves like this trip that make me believe. He looked presidential and as many columnists have pointed out, avoided potentially messy situations. This was not a trip to make grand policy and strategic announcements. This was a trip to look the part, and boy did he ever. Despite some lies from the McCain camp and the Fox News crowd (Shocking, I know)Obamas trip went off without a hitch. And mostly just realize that Obama's people know strategy, if you have doubts about that just read the Wash Post's articles chronicling how Plouffe and Axelrod and the gang took down Hilary county by county, pure genius that will be replicated in the General. Lets not get all in a huff about Obama being too centered on foreign affairs, and lets certainly realize the Obama ? Bush. (See Invasion of Iraq, diplomatic negotiations, etc.) One last point, this article Heileman is partisan crap. In it he claimed that McCain was right on the surge, Obama was wrong. You want to talk about thinking like Bush? (Or a third grader, same thing) I think most FP writers and readers realize that while the surge had its successes, it did not do what the Neo-Cons are touting it as. There were a LOT of factors to the quelling of violence. For instance, Foreign fighters shifting to Afghanistan and Al-sadr calling for his followers to take a breather, of course, only until he is ready to bring an even bigger campaign. So lets call a spade a spade, Heilman's not exactly an objective newsman.

While Obama's rhetoric does seem in line with Bush's "democratic transformation" rhetoric, it's worth remembering that Bush's actions often differ substantially from what he says he wants to do. Case in point: the "humble foreign policy" Bush espoused during his 2000 campaign. More recently, Bush has pushed for indefinite U.S. military hegemony in Iraq, apparently as a way to secure oil production contracts for U.S. oil companies. This is not consistent with a democratic transformation of Iraq or the wider Middle East. Hopefully, Obama would discontinue that sort of policy.

Chill, I didn't go that far--am not voting McCain b/c of Obama's FISA support, just am no longer supporting Obama--i.e., I'm back on the fence and like I said I'm voting third party or write-in unless something (most likely VP choices) tips me to BO or JM. I am really having a hard time seeing what one brings as less terrible than the other right now. The FISA thing is huge to those of us who supported Constitutional lawyer Obama because we thought he'd have more respect for the separation of powers and the very system that protects our nation's greatness.