I worked on Capitol Hill for 20 years and I can tell the difference between a staff driven politician and one who knows what he's talking about. The staff driven pol (McCain is an example) is always capable of the big blunder. He does not mix up Shiites and Sunnis because he "misspoke;" he really doesn't know the difference. Same on the economy, he studies a memo and works to assimilate it. But there is no depth.
The sad fact is that most of our politicians are like that. On the Arab-Israeli issue, all they know is that they need to sound pro-Israel. So they end up mouthing the most superficial pieties. They are afraid to talk about the Palestinians because they might say the wrong thing.
They pander and pander, knowing that they won't get into trouble by just sucking up.
That explains why McCain is coming off as such an imbecile. Anyway, read more here to see why Rosenberg thinks Obama is different. I agree; he is different--and that's why he is so refreshing to anybody with even a little bit of intelligence and knowledge about what is going on. But it is really quite amazing to think that it's possible to be elected cycle after cycle without really knowing or understanding the consequences of what you're doing when it's in an area you don't specialize in.
So for instance, you have to wonder why decent guys like Sherrod Brown and others voted for the Military Commissions Act. The answer: you can probably chalk it up to a dynamic like this--he hadn't a clue what he was voting for. He was just following the advice of a staffer who cared only about the political calculation.
I know that I'm beating a dead horse here, but that's what makes Obama's support of the PAA so unsettling: he knew what he was doing, and he knew the implications of this law's passing.