Let's consider the following scenario: It is the fall of 2008, and U.S. Sens. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Barack Obama, D-Illinois, have won the nominations of their respective parties for president of the United States. They meet on stage to debate for the first time. What do we see?
There's the 72-year-old McCain, a decorated Vietnam veteran with a distinguished 22 years in the U.S. Senate, proven ability to work across party lines and a reputation as a straight shooter with common sense.
Next to him is the 47-year-old Obama, a man with an inspiring personal story but with just three years of Senate experience. Only four years earlier, he was a state senator toiling in obscurity in Springfield, Ill. He is intelligent, but not as seasoned as his opponent, and he seems exhausted from the strain of a never-ending campaign and being under a media microscope 24/7. In the end, the debate is a mismatch, as the clearly more qualified McCain cleans Obama's clock.
That's one possibility. Now let's examine another that takes into account the one issue that could change everything: Iraq.
Even as the situation has descended into civil war and public support for the occupation has totally collapsed, McCain has steadfastly continued to beat the war drum. Voters are confused why he of all people does not favor putting an end to the madness. After all, he experienced first-hand how incompetently the Vietnam War was handled. He should be promising an end to the arrogance and naivety that defined foreign policy in the Bush administration. Yet, for one reason or another, he still wants to slog on.
Maybe he just took that stance to win conservative votes in the primary. Maybe he's now trying to move back to the independent positions that won him admiration back in 2000. But now voters are wondering just where he stands and they worry that the country could be in for four more years in Iraq.
Enter Obama, who is on the stage by virtue of his primary victory over bigwigs Hillary Clinton and John Edwards after they were unable to explain their early support for the war in Iraq. Was it political expediency or actual belief that Saddam Hussein was a threat? Probably the former, but it didn't matter. Obama was the one whose judgment Democratic voters most trusted.
Of course, it wasn't an easy primary. The media quickly moved from pure adulation of Obama to hard examination of whether he had enough experience to be president of the United States.
Obama responded to these questions with an astute observation: ""What I think is more important is judgment. It would be nice to think the more experience we get, the better our judgment is. But Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have an awful lot of experience, and yet have engineered what I think is one of the biggest foreign policy failures in our recent history. I would say the two most important things are judgment and vision.""
Judgment and vision. That's what Obama has to offer. Others, like McCain, may have more experience, but Obama has the judgment to make good decisions and, in particular, one good decision: to bring the troops home. His vision promotes a new direction for America, away from belligerence and toward intelligence and optimism.
Though his rAcsumAc and tenure of service is shorter than his opponent's, it is in him, and not in McCain, that America sees its future. That is why voters elect Barack Hussein Obama the 44th president of the United States.
Now let's snap back to reality. November 2008 is a long way away and any number of things can change between now and then.
My point is this: Iraq is the hardest conundrum of our time, and something more than just experience is necessary to solve it. That something is judgment, and it's something I believe Obama possesses.
If it comes down to Obama and McCain, it will come down to Iraq. If it comes down to Iraq, McCain will be in trouble.
