The Discerning Texan

When it comes to Iraq, it is going to be enormously difficult for Democrats to sell America on snatching defeat from the clutches of victory in the General Election--especially considering the success of the surge. And many of the Freshmen Dems in Congress--who won in Republican districts last year on a "strong defense/support the troops" platform last year--are going to have an equally difficult task is appearing to support whichever candidate at the top of the ticket makes it through the Clinton-Obama slime-fest.

Unless some catastrophe occurs, it is shaping up to possibly be a much better year for Republicans than has been the "conventional wisdom' of the media elites (who have hardly been on a 'hot streak' lately...); which makes their suicidal pandering to the Kos crowd last night even more puzzling:

The only redeeming moment was Clinton showing a flash of wit when asked about her opponents' backgrounds. She began, "John, as we know, is the son of a mill worker . . ." Zing!

Despite all of this, however, there was one revealing exchange. The debate featured only a single serious question concerning foreign policy, during which the three Democrats tried to out-do one another in their commitment to speedily withdrawing from Iraq. Clinton said that she'll start within 60 days of taking office; Obama said he would have complete withdrawal by 2009; Edwards said that he'd leave no combat troops whatsoever, would conduct no more combat missions, and that "the occupation must end." (When pressed, Edwards allowed that he would keep a quick reaction force in Kuwait, to make excursions into Iraq if need be.)

Two points of interest: First, Clinton has decided to try to come after Obama from the left on Iraq, abandoning previous efforts to position herself as the grownup in the Democratic field--the only one who could be relied upon to act prudentially.

Second, Clinton made the following observation in the course of the Iraq discussion:

The Republican candidates running for the presidency are saying things that are very much in line with president Bush. You know, Senator McCain said the other day that we might have troops there for 100 years, Barack. I mean, they have an entirely different view than we do about what we need to have happening as soon as we get a Democrat elected president.

It's astonishing how casually the Democrats regard the fact that there is an "entirely different view" on Iraq waiting to confront them. It's particularly astonishing that they seem to regard this worldview as something exotic and peripheral to the campaign when it may be a defining issue in the general election: Does America want a president who thinks that victory in Iraq is possible and worth pursuing, or a president who is committed to defeat at any cost? In the Manchester debate Clinton refused to acknowledge that the surge had brought any meaningful progress to Iraq. Obama acknowledged some progress, but dismissed it as unimportant.

The Democrats act as though victory in Iraq isn't even open for debate in the next election. It'll be interesting to see whether or not they're right.