Two reads on the same McCain story

One of the things that makes politics so interesting is the ability of two people, two groups, or two political parties to look at the same information and reach totally different conclusions.

Case in point: David Broder's column in the WashPost on Sen. John McCain and his unflinching support for the war in Iraq:

No one outside the administration has been more adamant or outspoken in arguing that there is no substitute for victory in Iraq than has McCain, the Naval Academy graduate and survivor of years in a North Vietnamese prison camp. Others in the field of potential 2008 presidential candidates also support the war, but for none of them does it represent as large a gamble.

I read that column and concluded that if McCain doesn't change course, he may be the Republican nominee but can never be elected in 2008. I don't believe anyone who is still an Iraq hawk in 2008 can win. (I don't think changing your position in 2007 will work very well, either.) McCain's support for the war may well make him the Hubert Humphrey of 2008.

Interestingly (well, at least to me), Brian Christianson, who writes the Free Will blog, read the same column and reached the opposite conclusion. He seems to think McCain will be elected by acclamation.