You're looking at "we're in a war" as a campaign ploy, and I agree its not going to sell very well. The Dems ran against the war rather successfully, and will again in '08. Any pro-war candidate is going to be a tough sell. We'd better get used to the sound of President OBama.
I don't mean it as a campaign ploy, obviously. I mean it as a statement of fact, we're in a war. Whether we win lose or draw in Iraq, whether we throw down our rifles and flee into the sea, this is a war that will continue for probably the best part of the next two decades. If Hunter wins, if Obama wins, this war continues. The question isn't whether we will have war, the question is who will lead the country during the second trimester of a long war.
I want someone who has a clue. I'm still hoping Bolton will enter the fray, although I frankly have no idea where he stands on any social issue of the day. I know pretty much where he is on the war, however. He is my dream candidate for Secretary of State. I have read some of Hunter's discussions, and he strikes me as a serious man who does have a clue. Gingrich is our Philosopher King, who may occasionally be too smart for his own good, but he gets it on the war. I know you don't like Giuliani, and I don't either, but he is clear minded on the war.
McCain is my "not even if he's the last Republican on earth" candidate. I wouldn't vote for him even if he was the last Republican on earth.
The us of the term "war on terror" is deliberately cloudy and confusing, in my opinion. It can mean anything and everything any candidate wants it to mean.