Asked last night about why he felt he could unite the country, Obama replied:

Here's what I would do immediately. I would convene a continuous advisory meeting with not just Democrats, but Republicans, specifically on national security issues, because there is a long tradition that our differences in foreign policy should end at the water's edge. And we have lost that tradition.

And there's some wonderful Republicans -- Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel -- there are a group of them who have continued that tradition, but we have lost it because the polarization of the Bush administration.

Understand that I have no problem with the concept of differences ending at the water's edge.  I would love it if we could have a bipartisan foreign policy.  The last thing I want is for Democrats to become the party that exploits foreign policy for partisan advantage, the way Bush and Rove have since 9/11.  Particularly when the lives of young Americans are in your hands, you have the responsibility to do what's right on foreign policy, period, whether it causes you to lose the next election or not.

But polarization did not start with Bush, and when Obama fails to recognize that fact and fails to call out Republicans in general for wielding foreign policy like a political club, it makes me fear that a President Obama would be sandbagged just as Bill Clinton was by Republican partisanship throughout the 1990s.

No matter what Bill Clinton did in terms of foreign policy, he came under withering partisan criticism from the Republicans - criticism that we now know, given their position on the Iraq war, was positively insincere.

Listen to John McCain, legendary straight-talker, as he demands the withdrawal of troops from Somalia in 1993.

MR. McCAIN: But the mission which the American people supported and this Congress supported, in an overwhelming resolution, has been accomplished. The American people did not support the goals of nation-building, peacemaking, law and order and certainly not warlord funding. For us to get into nation-building, law and order, etc, I think is a tragic and terrible mistake. But the argument that somehow the United States would suffer a loss to our prestige and our viability, as far as the No. 1 superpower in the world, I think, is baloney. The fact is, what can hurt our prestige, Mr. President, I'll tell you what can hurt our viability, as the world's superpower, and that is, if we inmesh ourselves in a drawn-out situation, which entails the loss of American lives, more debaucles like the one we saw with the failed mission to capture Aidid's lieutenants, using American forces, and that then will be what hurts our prestige. Look at the tragedy in Beirut, Mr. President, 240 young Marines lost their lives, but we got out. Now is the time for us to get out of Somalia, as rapidly and as promptly and as safely as possible.

Listen to McCain again, demanding a withdrawal from Haiti following Clinton's invasion in 1994.

MR. McCAIN: The right course of action is to make preparations as quickly as possible to bring our people home. It does not mean as soon as order is restored to Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as Democracy is flourishing in Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as we've established a viable nation in Haiti, as soon as possible means as soon as we can get out of Haiti without losing any American lives. Now there may be different interpretations of this Resolution on the other side but it is my view and I want to make it clear and I think the majority of the American people's view that as soon as possible means as soon as possible. Exactly what those words state. The Haitians were to police themselves but the cooperation that was to prevent mission creep has not materialized and U.S. troops have assumed a greater and greater responsibility for policing Haiti. We all see on CNN what they are doing. Day by day their mission expands. American military personnel have been tasked with preventing looting, stopping Haitian on Haitian violence, protecting private property and arresting attaches.

In 1995, when Clinton sent peacekeepers to Bosnia, the partisan opposition was again evident on the floor of Congress.

MR. DELAY: I believe the President has made a grave mistake. He has put Americans in danger without clearly articulating what national security interest requiring the use of United States forces is at stake in Bosnia.

In 1998, when Clinton launched cruise missiles into Afghanistan in a near-miss attempt to kill Osama bin Laden, the Republicans famously accused him of "wagging the dog":

"Look at the movie Wag the Dog. I think this has all the elements of that movie," Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said.

Sen. Arlen Specter: "There's an obvious issue which will be raised internationally about the response here as to whether there is any diversionary motive involved. ... I have deliberated consciously any references to Ms. Monica Lewinsky, but when you ask the question in very blunt terms, the president's current problems have to be on the minds of many people."

John Ashcroft: "We support the president out of a sense of duty whenever he deploys military forces, but we're not sure - were these forces sent at this time because he needed to divert our attention from his personal problems?"

In 1999, when Clinton bombed Kosovo in order to contain the murderous Slobodan Milosevic, the Republicans yet again fluffed up their feathers in partisan outrage:

MR. DELAY: Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world.  The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.  We must stop giving the appearance that our foreign policy is formulated by the Unabomber.

MR. DELAY: I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today.

I assume I do not need to present anyone with evidence of how these same Republicans behave when it's a Republican President sending our troops into battle.

Obama was right that there are a few Republicans who generally take a reasoned approach to foreign policy, Lugar and Hagel among them.  But the Republican caucus overall is even more conservative and even more partisan than it was in the 1990s, and the retirement of elder statesmen like John Warner does not move their party in the right direction.  Can there be any doubt that the next Democratic President, whatever decisions he or she makes on foreign policy, will be subjected to the exact same sort of insincere, partisan criticism that plagued Bill Clinton in the 1990s?

How can a Democratic President deal with this problem, without resorting to Bush-like tactics such as questioning the patriotism of the other side?  It's a difficult problem, frankly, but the solution has to start with telling the American people the truth about what the Republicans are up to.  People need to be shown the hollow partisanship that animates the Republican Party and presented with the choice of whether they really want our country's foreign policy to be held hostage to this sort of angry finger-pointing.

The notion of insincerely opposing a war just so you can blame the other party for the body count is, frankly, about the most despicable thing I can imagine in politics.  You don't overcome that sort of behavior by ignoring it and promising to magically bring about an era of bipartisanship.  You overcome it by calling it what it is, and by appealing to the American people to throw the insincere partisans out of office.  Tell the Republicans to go find some decent, thoughtful conservatives, and then we can talk about bipartisanship.

It's never going to happen with the sort of Republicans who currently occupy Congress, and sadly, I question whether Obama could ever be a successful President on matters of foreign policy if he truly doesn't get that basic fact.  It's often not apparent right away whether a foreign policy decision was right or wrong, and it's awfully tough to muster the political capital to make the right decisions and stand by them when you're constantly being demagogued by partisans.  Obama may have the best judgment in the world, but the solution has to start with getting rid of the problem.  And the problem is not just George Bush.