Post Surge

There is an interesting storyline developing now in the media regarding Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. John McCain, and the "surge." By way of definition?

Sen. Barack Obama--Democratic Party nominee-in-waiting, leader in the polls, and candidate rock star

Sen. John McCain--Republican Party nominee-in-waiting, trails Sen. Obama in the polls, and is more like a fan of big bands; the other day when he landed in New Hampshire, there was one--count 'em--one reporter on hand to meet him. Unlike say, the press contingent with Sen. Obama on his foreign tour.

Surge--an increase of 30,000 troops to Iraq that seemed, by all accounts now, to have been successful in its goals of reducing violence and introducing a heightened sense of stability to the country, as well as allowing the government time to develop.

What's new is the sense that the "surge" worked. So now that it's worked, let's declare victory and get the heck out. This is also being expressed as the feeling that the American voter doesn't want to hear an endless debate about whether or not the surge worked (it did); who supported it (Sen. McCain), who didn't (Sen. Obama) but wants to know now that the surge is successful, when we will be able to leave?

This argument helps Senator Obama a great deal as he has combined the success of the surge (which he opposed) with his insistence of a timetable or schedule for leaving Iraq at the earliest possible moment. This may well be what voters want to hear; in fact, it's the best of both worlds--we're doing well, the Iraqis have time to work out their solutions, so let's not stay any longer than necessary. It's a forward-thinking argument and sounds a lot more appealing than the surge is working but we have to stay until we decide it's time to go, whenever that is.

Sure, Senator Obama and US Iraq Theatre Commander General David Petraeus disagree on whether or not a "timetable" should be established for a U.S. exit. The new narrative seems to be: the surge worked, so let's go.

Senator McCain may also be running into problems with some gaffes he's been piling up lately. He's been talking about the "Iraq-Pakistan border" (they don't have one); a mix up between Somalia and Sudan, references to "Czechoslovakia" (when that former nation was divided into the Czech Republic and Slovakia), referring to Vladimir Putin as the president of Germany, and others.

Pressure has been building in the liberal blogosphere for an accounting of these misstatements which are being attributed to Senator McCain's age of 71. As one pundit put it, you can criticize Senator Obama's policies, but criticisms of Senator McCain are increasingly being targeted to his age. Obama may be too young and inexperienced at 46, but is Senator McCain too old at 71, soon to be 72?

How will the voting public take to this? It will all factor into this equation which I believe is a soliloquy encapsulating the state of the voters' present mindset:

I think some change is necessary. But I don't know a whole lot about Barack Obama except he's for change and he's awful young. But he seems to have energy, determination, and smarts; and maybe he can change America's image in the world. He seems to have answers and lots of plans. But I'm not ready yet to commit. I need to see a little more of this guy. What if he talks a good game but can't deliver?

John McCain, great guy, patriot, can't imagine what he must have gone through, speaks his mind, is independent, doesn't talk down to you or pander, he'd be good on the war on terror but has his time passed? Is he the guy I want at the helm given what faces us in 2008? He even says he doesn't much care about domestic issues. I'm not sure about that...So, I don't know...I have to figure this out. But I still have time, the election is far away.

Which affects a candidate more...age or inexperience? That's a tough one. But an answer will emerge after the presidential debates, which barring any huge developments until then, could decide that and many other questions.