Despite the best efforts of George W. Bush and John McCain to sabotage it; yes the Surge worked.  It worked because most people inside Iraq now really believe that the United States will be leaving Iraq soon.  No thanks to President Bush on that score; since the President still refuses to rule out a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq.  And no thanks to Senator McCain either who publicly muses that the U.S. military may stay in Iraq for a hundred years if necessary.  The Surge, a decision to send 30,000 more American soldiers into Iraq, could easily have been viewed by Iraqi citizens as evidence of American re-entrenchment .in their homeland.  .And who could have blamed them?

Most Republican leaders remain loath to give Iraq's citizens any concrete assurances that the American military occupation will be short lived.  Instead the Bush Administration acts like the Green Zone in Baghdad is the Panama Canal Zone resurrected or perhaps our new Guantanomo Bay.  Where does the Bush Administration get the authority to argue with Iraq's government over how soon it can ask the U.S. to withdraw our forces? Why on Earth is the largest U.S. Embassy on Earth being constructed in Iraq today, if America's role in Iraq tomorrow was destined to be minimal?  Whose war is it, anyway?

Few Buzz terms get thrown about so often or so wildly during this primary season than that noble sounding very democratic phrase; "the popular will". Mostly its use is coupled with demands that it be honored, and dire warnings about the ruin that lies in store for the Democratic Party if "the Popular Will" is "overturned" by Super Delegates at the 2008 Democratic Convention.

When rhetoric is removed from substance however, what remains is a simple assertion, namely a claim that whichever Democratic candidate enters the 2008 Democratic Convention holding a lead in pledged delegates embodies "the popular will", and with that an inherent implicit democratic right to become the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee. Flowing from that assumption come dark warnings voiced by some about efforts to "steal" the nomination from its otherwise rightful heir through some sort of Super Delegate engineered "coup".  

I understand and accept that fair criticism of Hillary Clinton is certainly possible, including some on matters related to what I include on my list below.  But I think most folks reading this in good faith can acknowledge the difference between what I am discussing here and fair criticism.

Current Attack Meme Lie Number One:

"Hillary has no chance of winning" feeds into...

Current Attack Meme Lie Number Two:

"Hillary must now only be in this to make Barack Obama lose the election" (so she can run in 2012) which feeds into...

Current Attack Meme Lie Number Three:

"Hillary really wants McCain to become President and hopes to be in his Administration"

These are the current talking points being used to take down Hillary Clinton. They have been seeded into the echo chamber. It doesn't matter that they are lies, they are good ways of tearing Hillary Clinton down.

Timing is everything, and the timing of Barack Obama's statement was wrong, profoundly so, even though it's content was profoundly right. The speech was late in coming, but much better late than never. Obama's timing was wrong in a political sense but also in the much broader social context of the signature rational for his presidential quest; Obama's pledge to bring Americans of different walks together as a people.

At this point in time, in the 2004 contest for the Democratic nomination for President, four Democratic Candidates remained in the race; John Kerry, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and Al Sharpton. With March 2 2004 Super Tuesday approaching, John Kerry had already won 18 out of the 21 contests already held, having lost only in the District of Columbia, South Carolina, and Oklahoma. Senator Kerry was on a bit of a roll at this point, having won the previous 11 contests. All 11 of those victories were by margins of 15% or above, with the sole exception of Wisconsin, where Kerry won by a 6% margin. Over half of Kerry's victories during this run (6) were by margins of over 20%.

On February 28th 2004, none of John Kerry's remaining Democratic opponents had won more than a single primary or caucus in the entire 2004 race, compared to Kerry's 18 total victories by that date. Still, no Democratic Candidate was being pressured to leave the race by forces external to his own campaign, and Senator John Edwards in particular continued to maintain hope of winning the Democratic nomination for President. The media continued to regard Senator Edwards as a serious contender to win the Democratic nomination.

Most core Republican Party special interests, with a partial exception for some elements of the Religious Right, essentially believe in Social Darwinism. They heap high praise on "The Individual" because they usually are, as individuals, heaped high with special privileges. If not they are wealth groupie wannabes. Which is why Mike Huckabee meets with such disdain from the Republican establishment - he sometimes gives a nod toward right wing populism. The Republican establishment prefers an ideological argument that supports "every man for himself", since the members of their establishment start out with big advantages in that scenario. Even IF "a rising tide lifts all boats", the boatless eventually drown, but that is not a yacht owners problem, in a sink or swim world.

The living core of the Democratic Party though celebrates the common good, and our common humanity. It is the Democratic Party that strung America's social safety net to keep the less fortunate among us from falling through prosperity's cracks to shatter on the rocks below. And the Republican Party has never ceased their efforts to cut widening hole in that social safety net, stealing the twine that protects the least of us to tie down their own high privileges.

I have had many discussions online with people who say Barack Obama will best be positioned to overcome vested interest opposition to progressive changes, because when he reaches out to the other side seeking common ground he will not be doing it by himself; he has "a movement" backing him up. I have seen endless posts here stressing how Obama says "we" but Hillary says "I", when talking about trying to accomplish political goals. The argument presented seems to hold that the movement behind Obama will insist on good faith attempts to find new common ground in solving America's problems, because "the people" will punish politicians - obstructionist Republicans mostly, who try to stick to narrow partisanship.

I can only judge the strength and character of "the movement" backing Obama by what I see from the outside I admit. To date however I have higher regards for Barack Obama than I do for his "movement", though I do see real positives in his movement also. A movement that starts by engaging new people to become active, that inspires people, that puts people into political motion for the first time, begins with a lot of pluses in my book.