Centerfield

Neither one of them strikes me as conservative, so I agree in that regard. Which aspects of Iraq are you particularly referring to, though?

I don't think that's really a very useful way to look at it, although people do persist that way.

Every presidential election is a choice between the two major alternatives that are left after the winnowing. Anyone can win if they make the finals and are preferred over the other finalist.

So, it's ENTIRELY possible that many folks can answer yes when asked "Is John McCain more similar to George Bush than you'd prefer?......and then still say they prefer McCain to the other finalist TBD.

Of course, it's already written in stone that if McCain loses, many folks will say "in the end McCain could not sufficiently distance himself from Bush."

McCain, for all his faults, is most certainly his own man, and no good friend of GWB. That some of his policies are similar to those of GWB really doesn't have much to do with GWB himself. It's who McCain is. I'm not sure who I'll vote for yet. But I think that to the extent McCain is like GWB, he's a wiser, craftier, tougher and more competent version. And that makes the right KIND of difference to me.

I hate to do the easy thing and just throw GWB under the bus, because I don't think he's a moron or evil, or without charm or other more important redeeming qualities. And because almost all presidents earn my sympathy and some measure of respect just for doing the thankless and impossible but crucial job. But when it comes to measuring up to the job of president, he's close enough to being a hapless dimwit that it's a been IMO his primary problem.

John McCain is neither hapless nor dim.

I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that I have exactly zero chance of correctly predicting the outcome of elections. The reason appears to be that I actually look at the policy positions and human characteristics of the candidates, and try to decide who will be better (or, at least, less worse) for the country.

If most people did that, and my preferred candidate routinely lost, I'd figure I was just totally out of step. But when there is no obvious correlation between my preferences and the chances of someone getting elected, I'm forced to conclude that a lot of people are using some entirely different set of criteria. I suppose I can take some consolation from the number of supposed experts who seem to have at most a tenuous grasp of what people do and why.

As for McCain, I think a lot will depend on who he gets to run against. Against Clinton, he looks to have a better chance. But a good enought one? Don't know. Against Obama, a harder challenge. But an impossible one? Still don't know.

In Iraq, I mean being for continued engagement in Iraq

Actually, for me, it's something a little different: PAYING ATTENTION to what's happening, which IMHO he isn't, since, as I've noted earlier, you don't hear him saying anything about occupation failures, which IMHO is minimal to understand the issue.

Most people will IMHO b against McCain on Iraq because of the inability of Bush to either explain well and Bush' busted deadlines. Those make it look hopeless to many, I think.