Goldfarb's A Fool

Contrast my previous post, about the good faith (almost) apology from John Podhoretz about Obama's "precognitive" correct view (in as much as it is apparently now been revealed to be supported by Bush since July), with this utter schlock from the Michael Goldfarb at the McCain blog.

In fact, Senator McCain has always been clear that he would strike at terrorists wherever they were to be found--even if he would not go around making counterproductive statements, as Senator Obama did, merely to appear tough on the issue. But then no one seriously questions whether John McCain is tough enough to serve as commander in chief.

All options are always on the table, but that does not mean they need to be enumerated in the form of overheated bluster. That Senator Obama would openly talk of bombing an ally speaks to his own insecurity and inexperience. That Governor Palin would repeat, as every sensible politician will, that all options remain on the table, puts her in line with Senator McCain--no matter how desperate the press may be to find such a gap.

Goldfarb decides that even through Obama stated a position that everyone mocked and which has now been revealed to be Bush's own viewpoint, that Obama didn't really mean it, but just wanted to "appear tough."

And then he gets even odder, stating that even if he did mean it, that it's irresponsible for him to have said it? Somehow Obama's words are "overheated bluster," but Palin's "all options on the table" is not.

But the best part of it all is the 5th Grade talk that:

But then no one seriously questions whether John McCain is tough enough to serve as commander in chief.