Polluting the Airwaves

"Obama wasn't alone in predicting that the surge would be 'worsening, potentially' the situation in Iraq. But it didn't. The situation is better.

"And the Democratic party, and its presidential candidates, are in the ridiculous position of being more anti-war now that we're winning than they were when we were losing."

On the other hand, George W. himself had a very different view of going to war in Iraq back in 1997, according to Editor & Publisher:

Sig Christenson, "who covers the military for the San Antonio (Tex.) Express-News, penned the piece for Sunday's paper that cited Bush's comments on Veterans Day 1997 as governor of Texas. He pointed to Bush's defense of his father's decision during the Gulf War not to remove Saddam Hussein.

" 'There are a lot of Americans [who say], "Why didn't you go get him?" ' Bush told the Express-News back in 1997, according to Christenson. 'Well, I'm confident that losing men and women as a result of sniper fire inside of Baghdad would have turned the tide of public opinion very quickly,' Bush added."

He had that part right.

One lingering question about Obama is whether the enthusiasm for him translates into votes. USA Today offers a cautionary note:

"Democrat Barack Obama is generating palpable excitement on Iowa campuses. But he's up against both history and new challenges as he tries to turn that energy into votes in the state's leadoff presidential caucuses.

"In 2004, according to the state Democratic Party, only 3.9% of 124,000 Democratic caucus participants were age 18 to 24. And that was for Jan. 19 caucuses. This time they are on Jan. 3, when virtually all Iowa colleges are on winter break."

Salon's Walter Shapiro was wowed by Obama's speech at the Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner in Iowa on Saturday night. "But what a difference eight hours can make. The next morning, Obama appeared for a full-hour interview in another arena of political combat, facing off against Tim Russert on 'Meet the Press.' The fiery Obama of Saturday night had been replaced on Sunday morning by a replicant, a tepid candidate mostly concerned with avoiding mistakes rather than winning converts."

Andrew Sullivan, who penned a favorable Atlantic cover story on Obama, isn't leading the bandwagon:

"I don't agree with Obama on some issues. I'm more conservative domestically and economically. I'm closer to the Republicans on healthcare. I may be more hawkish internationally. Philosophically, I have more in common with Ron Paul than Barack Obama. But I hope I can see how someone meets a moment in history, even if I don't fully agree with him. That's how I felt about Bill Clinton in 1992 -- and I don't think in retrospect I was wrong, for all his faults. I also believe that it is good for the republic that the Democratic party regain its nerve and its soul again. Only Obama can do that. Only he still believes. And if the Democrats regain their soul and shuck off their fear, maybe -- who knows? -- the Republicans will be next."