Here’s a question worth asking: whatever John Kerry’s record, could he afford in office to be weak on terror? Wouldn’t he be obliged to continue Bush’s policies in Iraq and Afghanistan and even, as he has already promised, actually increase troop levels in those countries? I don’t think it’s out of the question. John McCain knows Kerry and says he doesn’t believe he’d be “weak on defense.” Sometimes, a Democrat has to be tougher than a Republican in this area – if only to credentialize himself. I can certainly conceive of Richard Holbrooke being a tougher secretary of state than Colin Powell. I’m not yet convinced and want to hear much more from Kerry. But I’m persuadable. Four more years of religious-right social policy and Nixonian fiscal policy is not something I really want to support.

Kathryn Jean Lopez responds: “I do wish Sullivan would save time and come out for Kerry now. In just a matter of time he will come up with the rationalizations, but it’s taking him painfully long to get on with it. I’m betting all Kerry will have to do is say that he’s against terrorism.”

Isn’t this fun? Too bad Hitchens isn’t gay or he might be following Sullivan’s lead.

On the other hand, my guess is that Sullivan will get an absolute shitload of email about this that should keep him on board for a while. But in the end I suspect KJL is right. There’s only just so much of this you can take before you finally bail out.

Our ideas can save democracy... But we need your help! Donate Now!