Obama...We've Got Him

Remember the 2004 debates, when John Kerry won the first one, lost the second and he may have won the third narrowly? Although he won two of three debates, the main result was that he gave the Republicans two excellent sound bites to use against him: "global test," and [Saddam would] "not necessarily still be in power." He further lost points for normalcy in that when asked to talk about his wife, he talked about his mother, so all three debates helped the Bush campaign.
Fast forward to last night, in which the Democrats seem determined to give ammunition to their adversaries. Since 2002, Hilary Clinton has been running in the center on the war and illegal immigration because she will eventually have to run in the general election. Barack Obama and John Edwards are running only for the primary and seeking to placate their anti-war fringe. Last night, a hypothetical question asked the candidates if they would launch military strikes after a simultaneous attack on two U.S. cities that they knew al Qaeda had perpetrated. Edwards and Obama did not endorse military action, saying that they would make an internal response, fire somebody at Homeland Security, assess our intelligence problems, etc.
What did Rudy Giuliani say this week about the Democrats? He did not say we would have another 9/11 - that was a drastic misquote from Politico.com. Giuliani said that if they were in power, the forces of this country would only play defense. This debate will haunt Obama if he is the nominee (I have too much respect for Democrat voters to imagine that they might nominate that slimey ambulance-chaser, so no mention is necessary of "if Edwards is the nominee.") because he has outlined a plan for security that calls for waiting until a terrorist attack, then waiting until the next terrorist attack... The Man of Hope has a chink in his armor.