The Washington Post is clearly exhibiting early withdrawal symptoms ahead of the Bush exodus in January. Why else would it deem to waste another several inches of editorial space haranguing Barack Obama for not moving further to the right on the war – better yet, for not morphing into the farcical I-can’t-make-a-move-until-my-commanders-on-the-ground-tell-me-so position that in part led Bush down to the lowest approval ratings ever for a sitting president.

WaPo seems to think Obama is an addled child with strange notions that need to be slapped out of his head with admonishing commentary rather than a presidential candidate who represents the majority of the country on the war issue today. Status Quo is not where it’s at – but that seems to be where WaPo is most comfortable these days. Of course its editors are headed for the same political train wreck as the war ‘s supporters on the right (including Mr. McCain): while they keep heralding the surge as ending the Iraqi civil war and destroying al Qaeda, they feel as compelled to argue that we still can’t leave, lest it will all fall apart in an instant.

Ironically, today’s other headlines are dominated by Iraqi President Maliki’s reported call for a timed US withdrawal in any long-term security agreement hammered out with the Bush Administration in coming weeks, a condition WaPo felt the need to scold Obama for advocating as being too “rigid” and “outdated.” Maliki’s pronouncements may be purely for domestic consumption, but that in itself reveals a level of complexity to the situation that WaPo hasn’t seemed to care much about in the last six years of the war. Why start now?