Tom Teepen of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer writes:

With Barack Obama gathering bouquets of headlines by the armload on his Grand Tour, back home John McCain fumed.

McCain’s beef: That he was right about the surge, Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, was wrong, and the difference ought to have haunted Obama’s trip like a malevolent ghost but didn’t.

McCain’s complaint is fair as far as it goes.

Obama opposed the surge, which the presumptive Republican presidential nominee supported enthusiastically. And the surge has indeed, as billed, sharply reduced violence in Iraq and crucially has created political space where Iraq’s politicians can maneuver toward accommodations essential to crafting a functional state. They look at last to be doing so, if only by fits and starts and then imperfectly.

All of that has finally brought the Iraq mistake within hailing distance of a messy but potentially functional conclusion, the best that can be hoped for where President Bush had imagined instead a democracy so dazzling its allure would stun the Middle East into peaceableness.

But McCain even so has been denied the chance to bask in the I-told-you-sos as he clearly yearns to do. Why?

Because while McCain has been tactically right and Obama wrong, Obama has been strategically right and McCain way off. As McCain did not, Obama opposed the war from the get-go, a stance widely assumed to be politically fatal at the time but one in which public opinion now strongly concurs.

And Obama now rightly sees the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan as the urgent security threat Iraq never was, as McCain does not. McCain says he would get around to it once we are victorious in Iraq.

Bush pulled up short in Afghanistan, whose radical Islamist Taliban regime had succored and sheltered al-Qaida and its 9/11 attackers, in order to go off chasing a fanciful scenario in Iraq, which had had nothing to do with 9/11.

Now the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, where a dangerous terrorist state potentially looms as a result, and into the bargain also menaces the wobbly government in next-door Pakistan.

The Iraq misadventure has so drained the U.S. military that Washington has nowhere to turn to but to Iraq for the forces and materiel essential to blocking and finally, definitively defeating the Taliban — precisely the point of Obama’s proposed, phased withdrawal from Iraq.

The open-ended pursuit of the war of choice in Iraq has to yield to the prosecution of the war of necessity in Afghanistan.

Obama’s round of foreign travel is partly a campaign stunt, of course. That is hardly unheard of in presidential elections. But as well it has shown Obama as grasping the security imperative in Afghanistan and as understanding how our options in Iraq are limited as a result.

McCain’s pugnacious scrapping over the surge has him refighting yesterday’s fight. He should be grateful that he is not drawing all the attention for it that he wants.

Israeli polls have placed presumptive democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama behind Senator John McCain in the latest popularity polls. Obama crossed swords with the Palestinian leadership, after vowing in June that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided,” a comment which seemed to prejudge final status peace talks.

He later walked back from the comments, but the controversy was a reminder of the political minefields lying in wait in the Middle East.

Obama has however hinted at a return to a fully engaged US role in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking, which President George W. Bush avoided until late in his second term.

Hours after clinching the Democratic nomination ahead of rival Hillary Clinton in June, Obama told the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), that peace talks would be a priority right from the start of his presidency.

Obama aides have declined to release details of his itinerary, owing to security fears, on a trip getting the kind of blanket Secret Service protection normally offered to a US president.

But he is expected to arrive in Jordan for talks with King Abdullah II on Monday, after making crucial war zone visits to Afghanistan Sunday, and an expected onward journey to Iraq.

Jordanian sources said King Abdullah would take the opportunity to stress the importance of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Such visitations with key Middle Eastern leaders are possibly designed to bring hope to the possibly of a peace agreement during an Obama presidency.

We’ve put together an online interactive spreadsheet where you can adjust African-American, youth (18-29), and Republican turnout in the primary 18 states targeted by the Obama campaign. Here are electoral projections based on three different turnout models.

Scenario 1 - 10% Increase Among Blacks and Youth: Under this assumption, thirty-two electoral votes from three states - Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio - switch to the Democrats’ column. Obama also widens his lead in Democratic-leaning battlegrounds: opening up a seven point gap in Michigan, a five point spread in Pennsylvania, and a three point advantage in Wisconsin. All other things equal from 2004, the Illinois senator clinches the presidency with 284 electoral votes.

Likelihood: This model appears to be a conservative estimate. If blacks go to the polls at the same rate as whites across the nation, that would automatically translate into a twelve percent turnout increase; similarly, if youths vote at the national rate, their turnout would spike by twenty percent.

However, a caveat (you knew there had to be one) applies. We’re using national figures to project national turnout increases, but a specific demographic’s turnout varies widely from state to state. For example, Obama is targeting a few states in the South where blacks already vote at considerably high rates; thus, our projections may overstate the potential for turnout growth in states such as Georgia.

Scenario 2 - 20% Increase Among Blacks and Youth: Shade both Florida and Nevada blue, providing an additional thirty-two electoral votes that boost Obama’s total to 316. Colorado, Virginia, and Missouri - thirty-three electoral votes combined - narrow to within two percent.

Likelihood factor: This scenario paints an optimistic electoral map, but one maintaining plausibility. If youth turnout jumps to the national mean, the latter half of the model stands fulfilled. And spurred by the prospect of the first African-American president, blacks could turn out at unprecedented rates.

Scenario 3 - 20% Increase Among Blacks and Youth, 5% Decrease Among Republicans: The swing states - Colorado, Virginia, and Missouri - from the previous scenario flip Democratic, as Obama’s majority climbs to 349. Arkansas and North Carolina each close to a smidgen over two percent.

Likelihood factor: A highly improbable outcome. Republican turnout will dip by that magnitude only if some self-fulfilling prophecy of a Democratic landslide gains traction before Election Day; consequently, disillusioned Republicans already afflicted with ennui (less than 50% of the party expresses enthusiasm about McCain) decide to stay home.

A final note: These three scenarios create an identical copy of the 2004 election and then take into account only turnout changes. They don’t reflect other factors, such as anti-Republican sentiment, that would also alter the results.

The Chicago Tribune tinkers with turnout models:

A projection by the Tribune based on the results of the 2004 election shows that a turnout increase of 10 percent among blacks and youths—two groups that have demonstrated considerable excitement over the Obama candidacy—would offer a powerful potential lift to his campaign.

Two states that the Republicans narrowly won last time, Iowa and New Mexico, would switch to the Democratic column. The Republican lead in Ohio would plummet from more than 118,000 votes to fewer than 6,000. A host of Republican states would come into play, while Democratic leads would be substantially cushioned in major blue states that the presumed Republican candidate John McCain has targeted: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

And ten percent, when viewed within the context of the primaries, appears to be a modest estimate:

One indicator of the level of excitement this time: Exit polls from the Democratic primaries in states where such information was available this year indicated turnout among blacks more than doubled from four years earlier, according to an analysis by Bositis.

The cardinal rule of politics states that you define yourself before others blemish your blank canvas, and similarly, that you define your opponents before they paint indelible portraits of themselves. Each presidential election, the axiom’s acolytes fire a barrage of accusations at the opposing candidate in an effort to disrupt his budding narrative. This dynamic has resurfaced in the early stages of the Obama-McCain duel, with each side fervently seeking to cast the other as out-of-touch hypocrites touting preposterous policies.

First Read picks up on the race to define, elaborating on a point made by David Broder:

With Obama so unknown still, is it good for him to be ducking town hall meetings and deciding to fund his campaign privately? The more he does things that give the appearance of just another politician, doesn’t that undercut the delicate nature of his fresh face image? It’s the talking point of the weekend by McCain surrogates, and it could be one that’s effective. The Clinton campaign never could make the “he’s just another craven politician” tag stick, because Clinton had the whole pot-kettle problem. But with McCain’s reform image engrained with many voters — even if it’s been dented by some reversals of his own — Obama could see this tactic used against more effectively now than it was during the primary.

Leave aside Obama’s brand issues for now; that’s a subject for future posts.  Instead, consider the strength of the foundation supporting McCain’s reputation.  Is the senator’s reform image entrenched in the electorate’s mind, as First Read indicates?  Or, more likely, is this theory yet another Beltway concoction that crumbles when confronted with the bludgeon of fact?

How did First Read arrive at this assumption?  It sure sounds like speculation, and we’ve seen the success rate of unfounded hypotheses during this election.  Take  the “Democrats are fatally divided” myth, a fallacy that continued to propagate despite contradictory poll data.  Or, pull out from that dusty drawer the Clinton invincibility storyline, which endured numerous blows before detonating post-Iowa.

Someone has already researched the McCain brand’s stickiness - the results were the polar opposite of First Read’s fictional, but still conventional wisdom:

Advisers to Mr. Obama said their research suggested that Mr. McCain, notwithstanding his high profile in American politics for more than a decade, was not well known to many voters.

Obama opens up a fifteen point lead in the latest Newsweek poll, buoyed by the shifting party sentiments:

55 percent of all voters call themselves Democrats or say they lean toward the party while just 36 percent call themselves Republicans or lean that way.

Yowzers!  Couple this with statistical models granting Obama an average of 343.8 electoral votes, and this election may turn into a landslide.

Yesterday, we outlined the benefits for Obama from more debates: as promised, here are the consequences.

Experience? Really?: We previously wrote that more debates could “elevate the allegedly inexperienced Obama, granting him a level of credibility unlikely to be earned in only two or three face-to-face matchups.” However, delve into the Democratic primaries to find a ready counterexample.

Obama endured a grueling twenty-six debates during the primary season, appearing one-on-one with Hillary for the last six. Despite the abundance of opportunities to convey experience, he always faltered, his fumbling nature paling in comparison to Hillary’s fluency on wonky topics.

Among voters considering experience the most important quality in a candidate, Obama performed the same at the beginning of the primaries as at the end - single-digits. Even after sixteen months of campaigning and twenty-six debates, he did not significantly assuage the inexperience fears. Translate these woes to the general election, and no number of debates will mitigate the inexperience factor.

Suit Up, You’re In: Currently, McCain has to claw for attention, a reflection of the torrential enthusiasm surrounding Democrats and the stupor afflicting Republicans. However, a heavy debate schedule grants the Arizonan plenty of free media exposure, essential for a financially-strapped campaign. Each debate provokes a burst of publicity and provides the venue for McCain to relay his message. With more debates, the Obama campaign lets McCain onto the field when they could keep him half-stuck in the locker room.

Opportunity Cost: Spending time preparing for and attending debates prevents Obama from campaigning, whether through mega-rallies or round tables spotlighting a specific issue.  And as the primaries indicated, when Obama’s team blankets a region, the candidate’s poll numbers skyrocket.  Witness Texas and Pennsylvania, where the campaign slashed twenty point deficits in half.

Also consider the cost of switching mediums.  Obama performs better at rallies than at debates, while McCain excels in town-hall settings compared to formal speech environments.  With more debates, McCain has more opportunities in a favorable environment.

The McCain and Obama campaigns have initiated discussions over the debate schedule, with each side desiring more than the customary three. McCain is furiously pitching ten town-hall meetings, while Obama wants somewhere between three and ten in a mix of formats. We plunge into this debate over debates, presenting the benefits for Obama today.

Experience: More debates elevate the allegedly inexperienced Obama, granting him a level of credibility unlikely to be earned in only two or three face-to-face meetings. If the Illinois senator consistently displays a dexterity of the issues, matching or even surpassing McCain’s, he could partially erase the inexperience smudge on his record.

Gaffe-Gate: The more debates, the higher the probability that McCain will commit an embarrassing gaffe. In town-hall settings this year, the senator has blundered numerous times: saying troops were down to pre-surge levels, implying America waged the Iraq war for oil, and calling Putin the president of Germany. Now picture one of these muffs occurring, followed by Obama gently correcting McCain. The moment would instantly be entrenched in YouTube lore and could carry the same magnitude as Ford’s Soviet Union bungle.

Personality: Obama radiated a calm and collected nature in the last few Democratic debates, while McCain occasionally dipped into snideness and sarcasm during the Republican face-offs. Essentially, Obama appeared presidential and McCain did not. More airtime would solidify the contrast in public personality, lending Obama an air of gravitas essential against a grizzled war veteran.

Arguments for the opposing side are coming soon.

Frank Rich takes a trebuchet to the “Democrats are divided” myth, exposing reams of data debunking the Beltway falsehood:

Yet the myth of Democratic disarray is so pervasive that when “NBC Nightly News” and The Wall Street Journal presented their new poll results last week (Obama, 47 percent; McCain, 41 percent) they ignored their own survey’s findings to stick to the clichéd script. Both news organizations (and NBC’s sibling, MSNBC) dwelled darkly on Mr. Obama’s “problems with two key groups” (as NBC put it): white men, where he is behind 20 percentage points to Mr. McCain, and white suburban women, where he is behind 6 points.

Since that poll gives Mr. Obama not just a 19-point lead among all women but also a 7-point lead among white women, a 6-point deficit in one sliver of the female pie is hardly a heart-stopper. Nor is Mr. Obama’s showing among white men shocking news. No Democratic presidential candidate, including Bill Clinton, has won a majority of that declining demographic since 1964. Mr. Kerry lost white men by 25 points, and Mr. Gore did by 24 points (even as he won the popular vote).

“NBC Nightly News” was so focused on these supposedly devastating Obama shortfalls that there was no mention that the Democrat beat Mr. McCain (and outperformed Mr. Kerry) in every other group that had been in doubt: independents, Catholics, blue-collar workers and Hispanics. Indeed, the evidence that pro-Clinton Hispanics are flocking to Mr. McCain is as nonexistent as the evidence of a female stampede. Mr. Obama swamps Mr. McCain by 62 percent to 28 percent — a disastrous G.O.P. setback, given that President Bush took 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004, according to exit polls. No wonder the McCain campaign no longer lists its candidate’s home state of Arizona as safe this fall.

There are many ways that Mr. Obama can lose this election. But his 6-percentage-point lead in the Journal-NBC poll is higher than Mr. Bush’s biggest lead (4 points) over Mr. Kerry at any point in that same poll in 2004. So far, despite all the chatter to the contrary, Mr. Obama is not only holding on to Mrs. Clinton’s Democratic constituencies but expanding others (like African-Americans). The same cannot be said of Mr. McCain and the G.O.P. base.