A JPost.com exclusive blog Barack Obama and John McCain clashed over foreign policy last week - or did they? While some headlines emphasized the two candidates' differences, proclaiming "McCain Slams Obama on Iraq Surge," the two also agreed on many important fundamentals - as well as key policies. Their points of overlap demonstrate that both are patriots, both are "anti-terror," both seek an American victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact that the previous sentence needs to be written, of course, illustrates the absurd extremes to which so many partisan critics take the polarizing discourse about the candidates. Appropriately, Israel was not a central thrust of either speech. But the fundamental equation remains operative - what is good for America in this election will be good for Israel. And if the winning candidate sticks to the vision articulated in either of the two speeches, America, and Israel, will be all right. Characteristically - and in fairness, due to the setting - Obama's speech at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Building in Washington was more sweeping, more visionary, more programmatic. McCain's response at a town hall meeting was more focused, more hands-on, more strategic. Obama built his speech by remembering America's Cold War containment policy, embracing George Marshall's faith in "judgment," mixing what we now call "hard" and "soft" power. Before finishing with an inspirational return to his history lesson, Obama demonstrated his commitment to righting the wrongs of the Bush years with a deft combination of self-sacrifice, selflessness, muscle-flexing and nation-building - in the United States and abroad. He sees foreign policy - like domestic policy - as a vehicle for national renewal, for encouraging Americans to work together and build a national sense of mission and community, while defending their nation and improving the world. Less loftily, Obama proclaimed "five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century." Obviously, the rhetoric of a campaign speech does not necessarily anticipate a president's track record in the Oval Office. But the bulk of Obama's speech would be thoroughly acceptable to most Ronald Reagan Republicans. In particular, both Obama and McCain agreed about the need to beef up the American troop presence in Afghanistan. In response, John McCain focused part of his stump speech in New Mexico on Obama, Afghanistan, and Iraq, rather than delivering a more formal foreign policy address. Highlighting the contrast between the young, eloquent, intellectual visionary and the wizened warrior, McCain came out swinging, "I know how to win wars. I know how to win wars," McCain told his Albuquerque audience. "And if I'm elected President, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory, I know how to do that." Sharpening his elbows, McCain said: "In wartime, judgment and experience matter. In a time of war, the commander in chief doesn't get a learning curve." And more directly, he mocked his opponent, reading two Obama quotations, one back in January 2007 doubting the surge would work, and a second one a year later, acknowledging that more troops in Iraq led to more stability. "My friends, flip-floppers all over the world are enraged," McCain chuckled. In fact, both candidates are converging, not only about Afghanistan. Both understand that in the wake of the Bush presidency, America needs to experience an economic, diplomatic, and ideological renewal. Obama is more explicit about that - but McCain rides heavily on the fact that he was calling for what became the "surge" while George W. Bush was still blindly defending "Rummy" - Donald Rumsfeld - and pooh-poohing reports of chaos in Baghdad. And even on Iraq, Obama is cautiously, cleverly, and responsibly, narrowing the gap between his policies and McCain's. Obama still talks about giving the military "a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war" - an interesting choice of words considering that the traditional goal of most militaries is to win the war not just end it. Still, analysts noted that Obama's sixteen month timetable, now is set to begin on Inauguration Day - six months from now, and he spoke about a "residual" force remaining. Clearly, as the possibility that he just might become Commander-in-Chief grows, Obama is realizing that his rhetoric and his postures may have serious life-and-death implications. This convergence in a campaign is good. It is not just the gravitational pull to the center we often see after primaries. It is not just the "oh, boy, I might be president" flight from irresponsibility. It is also precisely what the American people want. A Washington Post poll this week found that 78 percent of those surveyed, "said it is more important for a candidate to adjust positions to changing circumstances than to stick to his original stands (18 percent prioritize consistency)." By this poll, more than three-quarters of the American people are more mature than most reporters and bloggers, partisans and pols. The challenge is for the candidates to show they can campaign vigorously, disagree passionately on some issues, while still reassuring the American people they understand that they both share many common values, common dreams, and common-sense policies. Support for Israel remains a part of this consensus. Judging by this week's exchange, as well as the more Israel-focused AIPAC speeches, the hysterical claims that Obama is going to abandon the Jewish State, or that McCain is going to so blindly support Israel there will be no constraints are both overstated.