1. He says he's been against "this war" from the beginning. Which one, the GWoT or taking out a dictator in Iraq? A president must be more specific than a garden variety liberal poster on a message board. If he's going to end the GWoT we certainly need to know the plan. If it's just our presence in Iraq, he needs to go over the mitigations he might take should things go wrong later.
2. "I will not weaponize space". Great to hear, but what if China and Russia do?
3. "I will slow our development of future combat systems". Sounds like a real winner there. Does he have any advisers?
4. "[will push for] a global ban on the production of fissile material". More information needed. Exactly how does he plan to stop Iran from pursuing enrichment with Israel not planning any large-scale cutbacks?
5. "...and deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals" We could lose a few nukes as a good-will gesture and still be able to defend ourselves, but somehow his "deep cuts" sounds a little more deeper than good will. How deep is deep?
Pandering to the base, you say? OK, but remember Barack is a new politician who inspires the youth by telling the truth and promoting hope, so we must assume his word here is golden. The openings he's providing for McCain are big enough to drive an entire fleet of straight talk buses through.
AS TO IRAQ 2/27/08
As to Obama's retort to McCain's charge of ignorance over the goings-on in Mesopotamia:
"I said, 'Well first of all, I do know that al Qaeda is in Iraq. That's why I've said we should continue to strike al Qaeda targets. But I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."This is a prime example of what happens when one lives too much off rhetoric alone--eventually it ties reality in knots. In the video above he says he'll end the war fast. He doesn't stipulate AQ targets, just says he'll end it. Now he seems to be saying he'll reserve the right to go after AQ there, but apparently after all the supporting troops are removed. That would leave a similar situation to the one in Pakistan, which would require waging unilateral attacks. All this while making the world love us again by not acting like a cowboy?
As to the boilerplate about Bush (and McCain) bringing AQ to Iraq by invading, first off it remains one of the grossest distortions of history ever made because it suggests that Hussein was harmless. The Butcher might not have been pulling the strings of bin Laden but he was probably the most terror-friendly dictator around at the time. But are we going to see the same old tired debate that's been roiling through the message boards for five years hoisted up on the presidential platform? And if so, how will this represent bringing people together?