Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., whose march to the Republican presidential nomination, defines himself more clearly every day as a man of the past. He takes for granted that the U.S. armed forces can and should stay in Iraq for years, decades if necessary. He has picked as probably his most influential foreign policy adviser Norman Podhoretz, often described as the "godfather" of the neoconservatives. Podhoretz has consistently been one of the loudest voices for the U.S. to invade Iraq and to stay there. His prominent position does not augur well for a McCain administration to learn the necessary lessons from President George W. Bush's failures.

Sen. Obama, by contrast, has been listening to Zbigniew Brzezinski on Middle East issues. Brzezinski's term of office as national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter for 30 years was hardly a successful or a happy one. But Brzezinski has sought to understand the region and learn the lessons of experience and past failures. He is far more moderate, constructive and realistic on Iraqi issues than McCain or Podhoretz have been. Obama's willingness to listen to him suggests that the Illinois senator will seek to move cautiously but constructively in the region.

Obama, therefore, offers far better prospects, we believe, than McCain for restoring the traditionally warm and mutually beneficial ties that the United States has enjoyed for so long with major Arab nations in the region. The prospects for a serious revival of constructive Israeli-Palestinian negotiations also appear far better under a President Obama than under a President McCain.

The contrasting positions of the two main candidates do not guarantee that McCain will be an unsuccessful president or that Obama will be a successful one. McCain certainly has vastly more experience of public life and has repeatedly taken principled, decent and even heroic stands on issues. He stands four-square against anti-Muslim or any other kind of bigotry and his leading role in trying to end the contemptible - and ineffectual - use of torture as a routine technique in the Global War on Terror was both courageous and admirable.

Obama, for all his gifts of intellect and rhetoric and his repeated superb judgment in setting up and running an exceptionally effective campaign would come to the White House with less personal experience, especially of international issues, than any president at least since Sen. Jimmy Carter. As Carter's own failures in the region, most memorably with Iran, showed, this matters. But Obama has already made clear that he intends to surround himself with seasoned old hands in dealing with the region, and other foreign policy issues.

We believe, therefore, that the choice laid before the American people this November will be a clear one: It is a choice between old policies that have clearly failed, and a cautious, pragmatic and optimistic effort to develop new polices that will work. The "old" standard bearer stands for policies of confrontation and risk, the young one stands for polices of reconciliation and risk reduction: The contrast is obvious.