<p>I used to have more respect for McCain, but he learned the wrong lessons of the Bush campaign and presidencies. He parrots that useless, pandering talking point that talking to our enemies is weak and naive. And it turns out a strong majority of Americans are in agreement that this is not what they want out of a president -- i.e. they don't want a president that doesn't use every tool in the toolbox to push our interests. Heck, even a lot of Republicans agree, even though presumably many of them would be inclined to circle the wagons even given the inaninity of the talking point.</p>
<p>As Bush was on the way out of Israel having just delivered his astonishingly treasonous "appeasement" speech (it has long been the policy of US presidents to keep partisan politics away from speeches delivered on foreign soil), Olmert patted the guy's butt and turned around to announce talks with Syria. </p>
<p>They are called enemies for a reason. If we talk to them and bend them to our aims, that is a good thing. If we back up those talks with credible threats of force or sanction that is also a good thing. Suggesting that doing these things is weak and naive is pandering to the stupidity of people in the worst possible way. I would have expected more out of McCain.</p>
<p>Nobody can call McCain "inexperienced." He's served this country well for probably longer than we have been alive. I think this is a situation where he is being advised to attack Obama on this issue because it scored so well for Clinton to do so during a debate a few months ago. Elections make everybody (especially politicians) crazy and say things. </p>
<p>That being said, I, with my admittedly limited understanding of foreign policy and politics, see no reason why talking to our "enemies" would make us weak or naive. It is weak to not understand your foe in any conflict and naive to think we can ignore them and unilaterally defeat them.</p>
<p>Experience in itself is not going to make anybody wiser or more foolish. For example, Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant were two of the most inexperienced politicians to become president. Lincoln is an American hero, while Grant is considered one of the worst presidents in American history.</p>
<p>It's not experience or age that counts; it's what you learn from it. And McCain appears to have learned very little.</p>
<p>nbachris2788
I disagree precisely with your last sentence only.
McCain learned a lot. He was practically an independent before Bush was elected.
After a while, he just ate up the Right - for whatever were his reasons. I see it as a grave mistake (obviously I disagreed with his changes) but the contemporary McCain is a new beginning. I'll judge it solely on its presented merits, because I have no idea what is going under the surface. He had experience, and he used, and the McCain who learned from experience died by 2005.</p>