i think the way to read obama is this: first, he really is a 'moderate' and a compromiser, as he portrayed himself. second, i think somewhere along the way, dems learned that they should try to pre-empt the miltary/national security agenda by just taking it up lock, stock, and two smoking barrels. remember 'i'm john kerry and i'm reporting for duty' (dem convention 2004)? kerry/edwards' slogan was 'for a stronger america,' with a waving flag. basically, after 9.11 everyone freaked and the whole political spectrum became a competition for who was 'strongest' on national security issues; who could do more surveillance and internments, or prosecute more foreign conflicts, or more ridiculously assert executive unilateral war powers. the only way that is not going to continue is if...ron paul is elected pres. only a few people in american politics - paul, kucinich, feingold - were consistent opponents of this approach. they're all marginalized, but paul is the only one with an active presidential campaign.
now i supported and support the attack on gaddafi, for the reasons i've enumerated. so i'm not with paul on that one. but (like mccain) i also believe that the idea that it's not a conflict and that congressional approval is not required is ridiculous.
