Soccer Dad

Do the pivot

Charles Krauthammer's column in a single sentence:

Which suggests a first entry in the Obamaworld dictionary -- "Inartful: clear and straightforward, lacking the artistry that allows subsequent self-refutation and denial."

It's the Obama pivot!

Join them and they can't beat you!

Interesting the New York Times portrays what to do in Iraq as much of a political problem for Sen. McCain as it is for Sen. Obama.

The evolving situation in Iraq has, in fact, tested both candidates.

Mr. McCain, whose support for the war helped him win the Republican primary campaign, now finds he must explain his position to an electorate largely weary of the war. And for Mr. Obama, who recently changed his positions on campaign finance and a wiretapping law, the suggestion that he was also changing course on a central premise of his candidacy holds particular peril.

It wasn't McCain's support for the war that helped him win the Republican nomination. Heck, except for Ron Paul the Republican field supported the war. Of course when the media only report on the war when things are going badly, the public will weary of it. The Times is being too modest here as it clearly played a role in fostering that weariness.

Mr. Obama's positioning on this issue has been a critical component of his candidacy from the beginning. He, almost alone among the major candidates, opposed the war from the start, and that helped him beat a crowded Democratic field. And while he has long said he would consult commanders in the field when withdrawing troops, that point might have been lost on many Democratic primary voters who supported his call to end the war.

With violence ebbing in Iraq, however, he has recently spoken less about withdrawal and has increasingly emphasized the failure to achieve political reconciliation in that country. In recent weeks he has also spoken more of the economic costs of the war and the fact that it limits the United States' ability to send troops to fight what he considers the nation's primary security threat: Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Remarkable, now, the reporters take Sen. Obama's absolute position and turn into something nuanced. Whereas Sen. McCain's solid support for the war has been turned into a negative.

Mr. McCain's support for the war, meanwhile, could pose problems for him in November. To that end, the Arizona senator, too, has shifted his emphasis. After being criticized for saying he would keep troops in Iraq for up to 100 years if necessary, Mr. McCain gave a speech this spring suggesting he would remove most troops by 2013, without offering specifics. He now talks more about withdrawing, as he did last week when he said "we will withdraw, but we will withdraw with victory and honor."

Of course the criticism of Sen. McCain's "100 years" remark involved taking his words out of context, but that's not something that the Times acknowledges.

All in all it's fine piece of work from the Times, portraying Sen. McCain as an opportunistic flip-flopper and Sen. Obama as sticking to his original plan.