Part of the talk about McChrystal and Petraeus in this morning’s edition of the Jolt:

Tom Maguire, writing at JustOneMinute, saw some ominous fuzziness in the president’s remarks about Afghanistan: “The clear goal is to ‘break’ the Taliban’s momentum (but what if they regain it?); ‘build Afghan capacity’ (but how much?); and ‘pressure’ Al Qaeda ‘relentlessly’ (but do we intend to defeat them?). Clear goals indeed.”
Allahpundit writing at Hot Air: “Obama said today in his speech that he welcomes debate but won’t tolerate division, but that’s palpably untrue given the longstanding tensions between McChrystal and Eikenberry. Fun fact from CNN: According to an inside source, yesterday’s assertions about not making any decisions until after the meeting with McChrystal was pure pageantry. Supposedly, Obama ‘had no intention of keeping him.’ With Petraeus waiting in the wings, no wonder.”
I found this point by Victor Davis Hanson thought-provoking: “One consideration helping Obama is that he does not have a Senator Obama in the Senate planning to run for the presidency by rejecting any notion of ‘common purpose’ in Afghanistan and demagoguing both the surge and Gen. Petraeus’s efforts. (He sermonized, for example, during the Iraq surge hearings and did not even ask a single question.) Once again, how eerie to see Obama playing the role of President Bush to the doubting likes of a Senator Obama — reminiscent of the once-bad Guantanamo, tribunals, renditions, Predators, wiretaps, intercepts, and Iraq.”
Oh, there isn’t a Senator Obama to President Obama on his side of the aisle now . . . but how far away from that could we be? Sure, nobody on that side of the aisle is eager to play Ted Kennedy to Obama’s Jimmy Carter, but how many times can he compromise on that ideal liberal vision that he offered in the primaries before somebody decides to audition for the role of “the Obama we were promised”? Unions spent $10 million trying to dethrone Blanche Lincoln for bailing on the public option and card check. How are liberals supposed to respond to a president who doesn’t deliver on those or on a slew of other priorities, and who seems, in their eyes, to compromise too much and adopt large swaths of the Bush national security agenda that enraged them?