Why Obama vs. McCain Is Far Better Than Hillary vs. McCain

One word -- Iraq:

Speaking to reporters in Richmond, VA last night, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) attacked “anyone” who points out that he is “fine” with keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 or more years. “Anyone who worries about how long we’re in Iraq does not understand the military and does not understand war,” said McCain.

He then added that it is “really almost insulting to one’s intelligence” to question “how long we’re in Iraq” because he believes the current “strategy” is “succeeding.”

McCain has also recently stated that he is the "expert" on Iraq. These words will really come back to bite McCain in the ass if his opponent in the general election is Obama, who opposed the Iraq Invasion.

This is a big deal, so big in fact that Hillary has Joe Wilson of PlameGate fame going after Obama's anti-war credentials:

In an aggressive essay targeting Barack Obama's qualifications for the presidency, Joseph Wilson, the former-ambassador-turned-war-critic married to outed CIA agent Valerie Plame, endorsed Hillary Clinton's bid for the White House.

Wilson's endorsement comes as Clinton finds herself 0-and-8 in February primary contests, and Obama's campaign gaining momentum headed into Wisconsin and Hawaii next week. The retired diplomat, who spoke out against Bush's characterization of Iraq's WMD program, said Obama's record opposing the war is too flimsy because he was just a state senator at the time "representing the most liberal district in Illinois."

"Senator Obama claims superior judgment on the war in Iraq ... and in so doing impugns the integrity of those who were part of the debate on the national scene," Wilson writes in the Baltimore Sun and at Huffington Post. "In mischaracterizing the debate on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force as a declaration of war, he implicitly blames Democrats for George Bush's war of choice. Obama's negative attack line does not conform to the facts. Nothing could be farther from the truth."

Nice try, Joe -- and I really do respect the sacrifices you and your wife made for the sake of truth -- but geesus. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: if that Iraq War resolution really wasn't such a big deal as you claim, why the hell did 23 Senators vote against it?

The reason Ambassador Wilson's argument fails is that people remember the debates that occurred prior to the vote on the Iraq War Resolution. People remember watching Senator Robert Byrd going on and on about how bad of a thing this resolution was. People know how much of a disaster our occupation of Afghanistan has become thanks to the stupid decision to invade Iraq. And while 23 Senators did oppose the Iraq War Resolution, three-quarters of the U.S. Senate supported it, including Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

I'm sorry Ambassador, but when a politician makes a bad decision, there should be consequences.

And with regard to Obama being the better candidate against McCain, stuff like this -- from the latest Evans-Novak Political Report -- doesn't hurt either (via Political Wire):

"Adding to the dark mood among Republicans is the increasing prospect that they will not be able to bolster their morale by running against the detested Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.). Her unification of Republicans has been one of the few GOP assets going into the campaign. It will take time and effort to work up a passion against the likable Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) no matter how leftist he really is."