Anchoring Obama's Trip

Power Line compiles interviews in which Obama said the surge wouldn't work.

Josh Marshall says the big news is the Republican's shift:

"Is everybody missing this? That McCain is now trying to catch up to Obama on Afghanistan? In fact, he's now adopting Obama's position.

"Obama has been saying for almost a year that more troops are needed in Afghanistan. McCain has said that wasn't the case, that Iraq was the central battleground in the war on terror. Moreover, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says that we need more troops in Afghanistan but we none are available unless we pull substantial numbers out of Iraq -- which McCain is ruling out.

"So let's all say it out loud: McCain is now copying Obama's position on Afghanistan."

To the New Republic, Senator O's alleged flip-flop is a creation of . . . the media:

"Yes, it's stop-the-presses enormous: Barack Obama has affirmed a position that he has held for months. Granted, the press was right to notice that Obama had shifted the accent in his Iraq talk -- no doubt marketing himself to a broader audience. But the fine print of his pronouncements and policy papers has always contained nuances and caveats, reasons why he might slow down a pullout and keep troops in Iraq over a longer horizon . . .

"That flip-flopping has become the most damning accusation against a politician speaks to the poverty of the political process. Here's how the system currently works: As candidates prepare to enter the race, they devise a foreign policy platform. Then, for the next two years, they must resolutely defend that platform. Any deviation from their original position papers will be treated by their opponents -- and, in turn, by the press -- as a deep character flaw, evidence that a candidate will do whatever it takes to win the presidency . . .

"And, while Obama has clearly reframed his Iraq position with an eye toward November, he also has good substantive reasons for backing away from some of his past rhetoric. The improvements within Iraq are real. Although they may not presage a liberal democracy or justify the permanent presence of our troops, Obama would be a fool if he didn't take these new trends into account. The dynamic within Iraq has changed since he initially conceived his policy during the bloodiest days of sectarian warfare. And there's certainly no reason why he should be rewarded for continuing to argue his Iraq stance as if nothing is different."

But the New Republic fails to convince . . . John Judis, of the New Republic:

"I'll take the side of the much-despised media on this question. If you look at Obama's statement in Fargo, there are two things that stand out: first, Obama has stepped away from an absolute timeline for withdrawal; but secondly -- and this is the key consideration -- he makes withdrawal contingent on Iraq being 'stable.' As far as I can tell, that's entirely new, and sets the bar for withdrawal higher than it has been."

A NYT poll finds a big-time racial split in attitudes toward the candidates: