Judith Miller is history, at least as far as the New York Times is concerned.
I describe the denouement of the long-running battle in which Miller went to jail, only to emerge at odds with her own newspaper, here. (Key to her departure: It all depends on the meaning of the word entanglement. You can read all about it on her site.)
What's not history is the war, in which Miller was an important player through her erroneous WMD stories and conversations with Scooter Libby, and which continues to roil the political landscape and fuel Bush's slide in the polls.
Are we seeing a gradual shift in the way liberals talk about the war? I have obtained -- from sources I cannot identify, although none of them are former Hill staffers -- an advance copy of an editorial to be published in the Nation. The liberal magazine is serving notice on politicians, and while it doesn't move many votes, this could amount to a leading cultural indicator.
"The war has also become the single greatest threat to our national security. Its human and economic costs are running out of control, with no end in sight. It has driven America's reputation in the world to a historic low point. . . .
"The Nation therefore takes the following stand: We will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq a major issue of his or her campaign. We urge all voters to join us in adopting this position. Many worry that the aftermath of withdrawal will be ugly, and there is good reason to think they are right. But we can now see that the consequences of staying will be uglier still. Fear of facing the consequences of prolonging the war will be worse.
"We firmly believe that antiwar candidates, with the other requisite credentials, can win the 2006 Congressional elections, the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries and subsequent national election. But this fight, and our stand, must begin now."
Sign of the times? John Edwards, in another Nation piece, now says his vote for the war was a mistake.
The spinmeisters, meanwhile, put out their predictable talking points after Tuesday's elections: Democrats saying their day is coming, Republicans saying the local races meant nothing. Had the outcome been reversed, the party messages would have flipped as well.
By the way, there was a striking exception to my blathering yesterday about how political endorsements don't matter. They may not do much for the politician receiving one, but they can occasionally backfire, big time, on the endorser.
Randy Kelly, the Democratic mayor of St. Paul, got crushed Tuesday -- he lost by 40 points -- after backing Bush's reelection. "If people vote on the basis of my decision to endorse the president," Kelly had said, "I will lose." He was right.
Polls showing Bush dropping almost aren't news any more; the Wall Street Journal has the prez down to 38 percent.
