When I first saw the comment on Instapundit, I thought it was an Obama aide who made an astoundingly boneheaded assessement of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. But no, it turns out it was the candidate himself:

Asked whether he would move U.S. troops out of Iraq to better fight terrorism elsewhere, he brought up Afghanistan and said, "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

Ahem.

That's it. Too many foreign policy gaffes in too short a time. Goodnight, Senator Obama. Thanks for playing.

Victor Davis Hanson, my favorite public intellectual and expert on all things foreign policy, said this:

Sen. Obama's remarks on foreign policy sound like, well, someone who just a few months ago was a local official of some sort.

In the case of Obama, one or two more of such pronouncements will either ensure Clinton the nomination (and that he is not on the ticket), or make him painfully aware that anything he says extemporaneously about foreign policy will be a disaster, and therefore he won't say anything.

We can only hope that Democrats nominate such a novice. Mitt would have no trouble dismantling him in the general election.

Second, Jonah Goldberg links to First Read's ruminations about the changed caucus date for Iowa:

Flying Blind: NBC/WSJ pollster Peter Hart (D) tells First Read that the revision of the primary calendar -- moving Iowa forward to the first few days in January -- is really the most important political event that has happened in the past few months. From his point of view, it changes the entire rhythm of the political cycle in a way that cannot be fully appreciated, maybe not until after the nominating contests are over. Hart says it would be interesting to re-play many of the past caucuses if they were held on January 5th or 7th; his guess is that Dean would have won in 2004, and that Reagan would have defeated Bush in 1980. Perhaps most significant of all is that no one will know who's up and who's down right before Iowa. No self-respecting polling company, he says, does polling between the 20th and 25th of December. So we very well might have no idea how Iowa will break until after the results are in. If Hart's right and the leader before Christmas is the leader on Caucus day, does that make the window between Thanksgiving and December 20 the three most important three weeks of the primary campaign?

Right now, moving up the calender helps Mitt. It emphasizes the need to win early and often, which Mitt has done. It also shortens the calender and makes it more difficult for others to take his lead. For some that will mean too little, too late - I'm looking your way Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee.

I've argued before that the long campaign season has and will continue to help Mitt. He entered the race a virtual unknown. Through consistent campaigning efforts, increased numbers of visible debates (where he consistently stood out), and persistent media exposure (and perhaps a small helping from grassroots blogs like this humble one), Mitt has gained a level of name recognition where he can effectively spread his message and run an effective campaign. Thus, the long campaign season helped Mitt.

However, that campaign season is coming to a close shortly. According to First Read, the remaining time to make a move before Iowa is essentially four months. That favors Mitt, now the front-runner, who is unlikely to suffer voter fatigue from over-exposure and has the organization in place to maintain and build on his lead.

Not that we should be complacent and rest while ahead. So get out there and argue Mitt's case to all the people you can.

Labels: national review