Well, of course outing a CIA agent as a sitting President and Vice President would clearly be OB.

But, I digress.  Where to draw the lines on candidate speech?

The major party nominees are of course briefed regularly on national security developments during the GE campaign.  Disclosure of any specific information coming from those briefings that is not in the public domain would presumptively be reprehensible and very possibly disqualifying all by itself, although I hesitate to say definitely so, as it might be possible to imagine a hypothetical scenario where that might not be the case.

From a political--not necessarily an ethical standpoint-- making assertions about the other presidential candidate which are no harsher than ones which have been made in the past by nominees of one's own party are likely to be politically defensible on those grounds.  If Dick Cheney can argue that Bill Clinton dangerously neglected the readiness of our military forces or words to that effect, then it is not treasonous for Barack Obama to say that about the Bush/Cheney Administration's policies.  

What Bush said about Obama yesterday is in a different category because it makes accusations about Obama's intentions and mindset, as opposed to the consequences of his votes or past policy statements. 

To say the US military has been weakened by over-extension of our troops in Iraq would be a statement about the latter, about the consequences of a policy decision.  To say your opponent is an appeaser is an example of the former, a statement about his or her intentions, values and mindset.  Anyone can make a policy decision of questionable merit.  But to accuse one's opponent in the way Bush did yesterday is a bald accusation that "the country would not be safe with you as our President and Commander in Chief," a far more sweeping charge. 

So I am relieved to learn that Obama is going to be addressing Bush's remarks directly at a campaign event in South Dakota today.

It would seem to me to be entirely appropriate for Obama to make a forceful case that it is the policies of the Bush/Cheney Administration, which Senator McCain has embraced with only minor exceptions (the torture bill's language being far too ambiguous and tepid to reverse this devastating policy), which has severely damaged our nation's security and ability to lead for a safer and better world.  The simple fact is that other nations no longer *respect* our leaders, our power, and our moral authority because the Bush Administration has damaged US military readiness and moral credibility to a degree unprecedented in our history.  An Obama Administration will move to reverse disastrous Bush Administration policies and begin to restore and rebuild the respect for our country in the world resulting from the weakness, including the lack of resolve and focus on al qaeda, of  the Bush Administration's values and policies.

Electing John McCain will not help restore the level of respect for the United States around the world which our country and our times require.  His is a hopelessly out of touch view of the world.  We will begin to restore our level of military readiness only as we redeploy our troops in Iraq, a choice which Senator McCain opposes any time soon.  More broadly he simply lacks the vision of moral strength and leadership these times demand of us, for the good of both our country and our world.  The best route to enhancing our safety and security is through the swift restoration of military readiness and American moral authority and credibility.  And this can only come about with the true change in leadership that an Obama Administration alone would represent.