Required Reading

An oddly interesting collection of links for the day prior to a long weekend:

1) From the New York Times, "Obama Might ‘Refine' Iraq Timeline" by Jeff Zeleny. (Scare quotes in original.)

When I was on a panel at Blog World in Vegas last fall, the prevailing sentiment among the prominent lefty bloggers was that if a Democratic president didn't get us completely out of Iraq within a year of taking office, they would crash the gates once more, this time with feeling. One of the progressives felt so strongly about this point, she even quoted Country Joe and the Fish to amplify her passion on the subject. (John Hinderaker of Powerline, much to his credit, made fun of the Country Joe and the Fish reference within seconds of it being uttered.)

I can only imagine the anguish this blogger feels about Barack Obama's latest ‘evolution' on the situation in Iraq: (Scare quotes my own.)

FARGO, N.D. - Senator Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot sustain a long-term military presence in Iraq, but added that he would be open to "refine my policies" about a timeline for withdrawing troops after meeting with American military commanders during a trip to Iraq later this month…

"I've always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed… My guiding approach continues to be that we've got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable."

Iraq can be "stable?" How is this possible, what with the surge having failed and the war having been lost years ago? As always with Obama, this latest evolution raises one question: Were his original and oft-repeated comments regarding Iraq reflective of his ignorance of the events on the ground or was he being mendacious in order to better woo gullible Democratic primary voters?

I usually opt for the ignorance option, but this time that's a hard case to make. After all, the surge's success made all the papers, even the New York Times.

2) From Daily Kos, "CT-Sen: Still Buyer's Remorse" by Markos Moulitsas.

Kos commissioned a Research 2000 poll and found out that Ned Lamont would swamp Joe Lieberman if they held a rematch today. Which reminds me - I commissioned a Rand Group study that concluded if Super Bowl XLII were replayed today, the Patriots would beat the Giants, 38-2. In recognition of my study, the Patriots will be having a parade through Copley Square over the weekend where they'll receive their Super Bowl rings.

On a more serious note, I understand that critical introspection isn't exactly the Netroots' bag. But shouldn't they be asking themselves, "How did our guy manage to lose to someone so out of step with his state on the critical issue of the day?" Lamont isn't exactly a polarizing guy (although the argument over whether he was a lightweight or an empty suit did in fact polarize some voters). And yet at the Netroots' begging, he became associated with a starkly polarizing campaign that probably cost him the victory.

The bad news? The Netroots are learning and are a lot more politically savvy than they were back in the good old days when they were putting Joe Lieberman in blackface.

3) From Investor's Business Daily, "The Down Beat Goes on in the Media" by the editors.

Buried deep within this editorial is a critical poll finding: "More Americans - 57% - think we're winning in Iraq vs. 51% when we last asked the question in November. One of the biggest changes was among Democrats, 45% of whom now think we're winning vs. 34% last fall."

Obviously Barack Obama knows which way the wind is blowing and is adjusting his positions accordingly. Whether Country Joe and the Fish will do the same remains to be seen.

4) From the Wall Street Journal, "The Politics of Can't-Possibly-Do" by Daniel Henninger.

One of America's best op-ed columnist not named Krauthammer points out that nearly seven years after 9/11, Ground Zero remains a hole in the ground. How did this happen (or not happen)? "The answer lies with a people who have to choose between politics that moves its system forward or a politics that just wants to have fun."