There, yesterday, was the Washington Post's neo-post-realist, Charles Krauthammer, piling on by squaring off the "grizzled veteran" vs. the "clueless rookie," and having a delightful time doing it. Any opportunity to flex brawn over brains is a welcome one for conservatives of a geopolitical bent, as is every opportunity to puff their much-preferred opponent.
Krauthammer was positively giddy about Senators Clinton and Obama's Monday night rumble over the "vision thing." As he recapped it, Obama -- "clueless rookie" that he is -- would be so foolish as to waste "the prize" of negotiation with foes, while Clinton -- "the grizzled veteran" -- is admirably tough, tough, tough. Charles likes tough; I suppose because it's worked so well for the past seven years.
He was just as giddy about the post-debate rumble, in which Clinton labeled Obama "irresponsible and frankly naive," to which Obama countered with the poignant irony that "I think what is irresponsible and naive is to have authorized a war without asking how we were going to get out."
Obama could have, and perhaps should have, added: "What's more, it would have been irresponsible and naive to have actually believed George W. Bush's promise of diplomacy in 2002. But we all know that no one really believed him, so it's just plain insulting for anyone who voted for the war then to say now that it was about anything other than political cover -- which has translated, to date, into 3600 dead Americans, about a half-trillion on credit, and a total loss of world respect."
Talk about bombs bursting and rockets' red glare. The "grizzled" Clinton camp would have gone ballistic with downright apoplectic fury that its nearly sole competitor would lay bare the awful truth -- a truth everyone knows, but goes politely unspoken.
But Krauthammer couldn't resist a bit more neoconservative slamming, reminding Obama's "enthusiasts" who "might want to write ... off" his naivete "as a solitary slip" that "this was the second time." Recidivist thoughtfulness is what I'd call it, but of course Charles had a vastly different take. To wit ...
"During the April 26 South Carolina debate, Brian Williams asked what kind of change in the U.S. military posture abroad Obama would order in response to a hypothetical al-Qaeda strike on two American cities.
"Obama's answer: 'Well, the first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response -- something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans.'
"When the same question came to Clinton, she again pounced: 'I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate.' Retaliatory attack did not come up in Obama's 200-word meander into multilateralism and intelligence gathering."
But, again, Obama might have countered that "swift retaliation" could likely lead to attacking the wrong country again -- wink, wink, ye grizzled veteran -- which was, after all, what the -- her -- 2002 "irresponsible and naive" rush into George Bush's war came down to.
Now I'm sure this model of retaliation is fine with Mr. Neo-Post-Realist Krauthammer -- one American foe is as good as another, so let's just wipe them all out -- but I doubt the Clinton camp wishes folks to be reminded of that little strategic boo-boo.
Opposite Mr. Krauthammer's piece was E.J. Dionne's, which, I think, pretty much got right the dispute as it stands: "The eagerness with which Obama's camp kept the battle going reflected a cardinal rule in politics: Front-runners should be wary of picking fights with challengers. In this case, Clinton allowed Obama to make one of her prime vulnerabilities, the Iraq vote, a central part of the campaign dialogue.... Clinton started a battle about experience and Obama turned it into a debate about change."
Yet Obama, as suggested above, has failed to escalate the battle to its bloodiest, bitterest and logical conclusion. Why? Because of another cardinal rule: because, of course, as he fights for the ticket's top slot, he's also jockeying for secondary position -- just in case. So honesty is tempered to avoid permanent alienation. And that's the ultimate political correctness.