The Note: Barack's Iraq Stock

July 15, 2008 -- Is good news out of Iraq good news for Sen. Barack Obama? (Yes, and no.)

Is bad news out of Iraq good news for Barack Obama? (No, and yes.)

Can any news he picks up in Iraq change his position? (Yes, but not really.)

Is there anything Obama can do about any of this? (No, and probably still no.)

As Obama, D-Ill., attempts to hit restart on the Iraq debate with a speech in Washington Tuesday, it's useful to remember how tough this is to get right -- not just for him, but for any politician who's come into contact with the chaotic politics of the conflict.

The broad strokes may be painted in his direction, and he may yet turn his trip to Iraq and Afghanistan into a pure plus. But the early signs aren't encouraging -- drawing him criticism from the left and the right -- and thus the need for a new start.

As unpopular as the war is -- and as much as the Democrats have portrayed Sen. John McCain as a continuation of Bush-era policies -- voters say they are as likely to support McCain's plans Iraq plans as they do Obama's.

"Americans divide evenly between Barack Obama and John McCain's approaches to the war in Iraq, and rate McCain much more highly on his abilities as commander-in-chief -- key reasons the unpopular war isn't working more to Obama's advantage," ABC polling director Gary Langer writes.

Obama's troop withdrawal plan is preferred by a bare 50-49 edge -- and here's one possible reason why: "Seventy-two percent of Americans -- even most Democrats -- say [McCain would] be a good commander-in-chief of the military," Langer writes. "By contrast, fewer than half, 48 percent, say Obama would be a good commander-in-chief, a significant weakness on this measure."

Check out the partisan split: "Sixty-nine percent of Democrats say he'd do well in this role; just 44 percent of independents and a mere 19 percent of Republicans agree," Langer writes.

"The poll results suggest that months of Democratic attacks on McCain's Iraq position have not dented voters' basic trust in his ability to lead the country's armed forces," Jonathan Weisman and Jon Cohen write in The Washington Post.

New head-to-head poll, out of Quinnipiac University Tuesday morning, has it Obama 50, McCain 41 -- outside the margin of error, but not quite comfortably so.

That's a slice of the stakes when Obama speaks on foreign policy and national security at 10:45 am ET in Washington -- a "major address" for a major moment in a campaign that can't afford to see Iraq slip away as an underpinning of a candidacy.

From the excerpts: "This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe."

"In fact -- as should have been apparent to President Bush and Senator McCain -- the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was," Obama plans to say.

Obama's key point -- the one that cannot be muddled, whatever else is said: "As President, Senator Obama will consult with the generals on the ground on the tactics necessary to ensure the safe, responsible redeployment of American troops over 16 months," per his campaign.

But holding your ground (any ground) comes with a price. McCain surrogate Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on Monday accused Obama of building "a political strategy around losing" the war.

Said Michael E. O'Hanlon, a Democratic defense analyst at the Brookings Institution: "To say you're going to get out on a certain schedule -- regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground -- is the height of absurdity,"he told The Washington Post. "I'm not going to go to the next level of invective and say he shouldn't be president. I'll leave that to someone else."

The Washington Times' Joseph Curl: "As Mr. Obama repositions himself for the general election after exclusively targeting the Democratic base of committed liberals, it leaves some voters on the left feeling he is abandoning them on their top issue -- Iraq -- and has independents questioning his veracity."

The concern continues: "My problem isn't that Barack Obama doesn't always agree with me. My problem is that Barack Obama has started to not always agree with himself -- falling prey instead to the Conventional Wisdom sirens," Arianna Huffington writes.

A tough box to break out of: "Aides said Mr. Obama's recent remarks on the wars reflected not a shift in his positions, as critics have asserted, but rather an attempt to present a comprehensive approach to far-flung national security challenges with limited forces," John M. Broder and Isabel Kershner report, adding details of an Obama visit to the West Bank when he's in the Middle East next week.

This is a start (we guess): "Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop 'surge' in Iraq," James Gordon Meek reports in the New York Daily News. "The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a 'problem' that had barely reduced violence. . . . Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an 'improved security situation' paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007."

On the speech: "The Democrat will explain how missteps in Iraq have hurt efforts to strengthen U.S. security, aides said. He will also discuss his proposal to add two new brigades in nearby Afghanistan, as well as call for Pakistan to step up its own efforts dealing with terrorists," AP's Glen Johnson writes.

(The shift in focus and manpower to Afghanistan is critical here -- it's there, and not Iraq, where Obama might be best-positioned to "clear" the commander-in-chief hurdle. And it may be there that the campaign finally finds a message it can drive -- events on the ground are prodding McCain to address Afghanistan at the top of a town-hall meeting Tuesday.)

It still may not be Obama's favorite subject area: "Every day spent on Iraq arguing about the surge's success is not an optimal day for team Obama," Jennifer Rubin blogs for Commentary. "Not only does it emphasize the candidate's major error on national security, but it distracts him from his domestic message."

And McCain knows it (Steve Schmidt, again, framing Obama before he can frame himself): "I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time," McCain plans to say Tuesday, per his campaign. "In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: first you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy."