Submitted by Allan, Jan 16, 2008 13:00

While I enjoy Conrad Black's writing and occasionally even agree with him (as on NH pundits), his take on the presidential race is flawed.

No candidate who supports staying in Iraq, no candidate who does not have an explicit plan for getting out, is going to win the presidency in November.

Black's historical analysis is off-base in more ways than one, but if he were correct, Kerry, not Bush junior, should have won last time around. Kerry had distinctly better military credentials than Mr. show-up-when-I-feel-like-it Bush.

Only really major military figures: Ike, Jackson, Grant, have really succeeded in riding their war records into the White House.

McCain, likeable as he is, was not a major military figure. Even if he were, though, he wouldn't win the White House advocating staying the course in Iraq. People may not cite that as a major concern now, focusing instead on the economy, but no one has forgotten about it. The reason McCain lost his initial headway as a candidate was almost entirely due to his continue-the-war mantra.

Barring unforeseen circumstances, my guess is that if McCain wins the nomination, he'll lose the election by a substantial margin, despite being the best of the Republican field.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.