Over the weekend, Josh wrote something interesting:

As much as the two campaign have sought to highlight the differences, the two candidates' positions on almost every issue is extremely close. And the differences that do exist pale into insignificance when compared to Sen. McCain's.

I don't believe this to be true. Though I used to: Several months ago, I found myself inclining toward Obama, but couldn't quite articulate why. Wasn't the difference between Obama and Clinton one that only matters in retrospect?

But then Obama said something in the January 30 debate that woke me up. "I don't want to just end the war," he said, "but I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place." Uh, "just" end the war? Wow. But as bold, as sweeping, and as attractive as it sounded -- what does it mean? What's the mind-set that got us into the war? And what would replace it?

The more I thought about those questions arising from that one line, the more it seemed to me like they held the key to understanding both Obama and the stakes in the 2008 election. I didn't want to either let them go, or write a blog post giving what my answers would be and pretending (or, more accurately, deluding myself) that they were Obama's. So I spent a couple weeks interviewing his foreign-policy inner circle and wrote a reported thinkpiece for the just-published April issue of The American Prospect. It's called "The Obama Doctrine." And not to belabor the point, but what I learned from his team is that I could have sub-heded the piece "Why Barack Obama -- and Only Barack Obama -- Can Win The War on Terror And Make America Great Again." I hope you'll read it.

Also, special guest appearance by John Nagl OMG FTW