Michael O'Hanlon is an unfortunate presence in the foreign policy establishment, someone who was an enthusiastic war promoter, and who argued that US casualties could be determined by analogy to the Panama conflict.
Worse still, he continues to support our military involvement. Topping it all off, he is considered a "liberal" defense expert likely to get a prominent government job should a Democrat end up in the White House.
We need to end bipartisanship in stupidity and error. The "O'Hanlon Primary" idea has bounced around some blogs - that a Democratic candidate can show a true change by promising that O'Hanlon won't be running the show in 2009.
I would love to see Edwards (or Richardson) win this primary, a win I'm convinced will be ever more valuable as the O'Hanlon-supported misadventure in Iraq deteriorates still more.
To help make it seem less "personal," here's a statement the either campaign could issue that's also a primary winner:
"We will seek and accept good advice wherever he can find it. However, any alleged 'expert' who enthusiastically supported the war and still at this very late date argues in favor of massive military involvement in Iraq is part of the problem, not the solution. Any 'expert' with this level of credibility problems is extremely unlikely to be a core part of our administration."
This would be a great step in showing a real change will happen.
(Cross-posted at JohnEdwards.com)