Yes, but McCain being right on Iraq aside, if that experience has aided and abetted His Ineptness, who was soundly rejected by Massachusetts in 2004, more than either of the two prospective Democratic presidential nominees it shouldn't count for very much
I'd like to think that either a President Clinton or Obama would proceed cautiously on Iraq; yet what is to say that a President McCain wouldn't drag it out as long as he possibly could so as to reinforce the claim that only a Republican can be trusted to lead in a time of war? Republicans in the White House in perpetuity? No thanks
Indeed, quitting Iraq seems to be an area where Clinton is doing her best to outscore Obama in the Democratic primary
Furthermore, is Clinton that more experienced? Was she quite the 'executive' First Lady she'd like voters to believe? True, she has been served in the US Senate longer than Obama; while McCain has been in the Senate much longer. Too long, perhaps
I'm closer to McCain on defense and national security but Bush, being abysmal as he has, has made any 2008 endorsement of McCain untenable. And I'd desire closure on Bush more than anything else, which is something I highly doubt McCain has to offer
Dave
Your whole post is ignoring reality and daydreaming.