Here’s a short article that makes the single point that if the contest for the Democratic nomination turns on the Iraq war, Obama wins. That’s becuase his opposition to the war was unambiguous from the beginning, and his comments concerning the weakness of Saddam’s regime and our inability to control post-invasion developments were prescient. And he even added the nice phrase about being only against dumb wars, not all wars. I wonder whether the same might also be true in November, 2008: If the situation in Iraq hasn’t improved, what would the Republicans have to do to keep the campaign against Obama from being a referendum over the current administration’s unpopular policy? Of course I say this not in praise of Obama or to indict current policy, but to make clear the challenge he poses, given the undeniable facts of the war’s and the president’s very weak polling numbers.