'Had we listened to Obama ...'

Jamie Kirchick in the Politico:

Had we listened to Obama back in January 2007, the effects of the surge would never have materialized, and we would not be in the place we are today, where talking about victory in Iraq no longer seems preposterous. So manifestly wrong was Obama about the surge that his spokesmen are saying he always believed it would reduce violence, and earlier this month his campaign removed negative references to it on his website.
We are incessantly told, without any real evidence other than a compromise bill here and there in the Illinois state Senate, that Obama is an incomparably thoughtful politician, the likes of which we have never seen before. . . .
To admit that his judgment was wanting on the subject of the surge would irreparably damage -- if not kill -- the Democratic narrative of the war.

What's really weird about this past week is that Obama has thrust the focus onto foreign affairs at a time that (a) polls indicate voters are most concerned about domestic economic policy, and (b) the success of the surge is taking the wind out of the sails of the anti-war issue.

We're kind of where we were in 1972 when George McGovern ran an anti-war campaign, only to discover that -- once Nixon started "Vietnamization" and ended the draft -- the peace movement has lost its oomph.