But there are nonetheless two problems with Mr. Obama's Iraq views that call into doubt his ability to build a truly inclusive American political movement. First, he seems contemptuous of the motivations of those who supported the war. While showing proper respect for the heroic efforts of our troops, he displays little regard for the views of those many Americans who saw the case for war in the first place -- even as he has called for a more civil and respectful political debate. ...

Mr. Obama's second Iraq problem is his insistence that, whatever happens there during 2008, he would withdraw all our main combat forces in the first 16 months of his presidency. Such a message may resonate with Americans, and particularly Democrats, right now. However, it is unlikely that centrist voters will support such a policy once they fully consider its likely implications for Iraqi -- and American -- national security. Given Iraq's fragile institutions, and the fresh wounds among its Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, it is doubtful that Iraq can avoid renewed civil warfare after a rapid U.S. withdrawal.

Read the whole thing. What's notable on the surface is how little effort O'Hanlon spends trying to debunk Obama's substantive views about Iraq, preferring to prognosticate about how it's all going to play politically. But that's nowhere near the real curiosity here. It's hard to understand why O'Hanlon is coming out so strongly against Obama right at the time Obama is looking like the favorite for the nomination. Can O'Hanlon actually be saying what he believes here, or is he running some kind of game?

Nothing much to say about the post... I just dig the reference in the title!
 Jason | 6:27 PM