Bret Stephens's excellent column today is worth quoting at length:
The animating impulses of Mr. McCain's life have always revolved around the act of confrontation: against the traditions and methods of the Naval Academy; against his captors in Vietnam; against "special interests," especially those connected to his own party; against Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Putin and the general threat posed by radical Islam. Most, though not all, of these were fights worth having, and 9/11 is a reminder of what happens when they are avoided. By contrast, Mr. Obama's candidacy rests on the promise of transcendence, though in practice that often seems like a form of slipperiness. He has campaigned on the theme that the old categories no longer apply: not of race or class, or of blue and red states, or of left and right. And in the matter of race, the transcendence Mr. Obama offers is genuinely wonderful. But not everything is susceptible to transcendence. Terrorists will not be less dangerous by being contextualized in a matrix of threats that includes climate change and global poverty, or because they will be mollified by Mr. Obama's middle name. Nor will Iran be deterred from developing nuclear weapons because a President Obama will restore faith in "brand America."
Remember, though, that Obama has not ruled out the military option with regard to the Iranian nuclear program. He calls for a broadening and a deepening of American involvement in the Afghanistan-Pakistan war with no clear exit strategy. And I believe he is likely to embrace an agenda of humanitarian intervention, in Darfur and the Congo in particular. If elected, Obama will be less of a dove than his supporters, and his opponents, believe him to be.