The night's highlights on Iraq

Bush had a primetime speech tonight, and he predictably refused to yield an inch to Democrats. Bush saw success in Iraq, and claimed the surge has been working. He announced he would start pulling out troops and get them to pre-surge levels by this summer (though analysts said today that the details of Bush's plan would still maintain troops at a level superior to what they were before the surge).

The speech was followed by a flurry of network coverage. Most of the presidential candidates were lined up for interviews, and pundits were ready for extensive analysis. Here are the highlights:

• Edwards's two-minute ad was up first on MSNBC. You can watch it here. Interviewed later on CNN, he repeated that there is no link between Iraq and 9-11, and called for Congress to "not to submit a funding bill if it doesn't have a timeline for withdrawal" -- something neither Clinton nor Obama have committed to.
  
• Democrats came out with statements almost on the spot. Here are Reid's, Hillary's and Richardson's.
• McCain was being interviewed at a campaign event, with people dressed in military uniforms waving American flags hanging out in the background. He stressed the new "No Surrender" slogan of his campaign. Like all Republicans, McCain explained why this was a great speech -- and why the surge policy was working whereas the Rumsfeld policies were failures (I do not remember McCain much criticizing Rumsfeld in years past, however). Giuliani had similar things to say, though did anyone notice his strange eye movements?
  
• The Giuliani campaign is also busy organizing a major fundraising push to fund a new NYT ad blasting MoveOn's "Betray Us" ad. Giuliani has been criticizing the NYT for running the ad in the first place, and is demanding that his ad be carried at a discount rate. Check out the ad here. The punchline: "Who should America listen to... A decorated soldier's commitment to defending America, or Hillary Clinton's commitment to defending MoveOn.org?" May I ask where Giuliani was in 2004 when John Kerry (also a "decorated soldier") was swiftboated and his military record was slandered?
  
• Chris Matthews was surprisingly critical of the speech. He joined other analysts in describing Bush as having called for an ad infinitum war. His interviews reflected his anti-surge stance.
  
• Fox News had titled its hour of news "Iraq: Going Forward." And Sean Hannity was predictably obsessing about the MoveOn.org ad.
  
• Why aren't we seeing more of Michael Ware? I had never seen him before, but his appearance on CNN from Baghdad was satisfyingly forceful and blasted Bush's optimistic assessments one after the other.
  

At this point, the Democrats have a clear path: Refuse to pass the resolution Bush is looking for, and force Bush to at least accept some kind of compromise. Kos summed up this message in the simplest of ways:

Who cares if Bush vetoes? Let him. Don't worry about 66. Don't even worry about 60. If Republicans want to filibuster, let them. Turn it into a real one -- where Republicans have to hold the podium and read from the phone book for days. Let people see who is filibustering funding for the troops and legislation mandating a withdrawal. If Bush vetoes? Send it back to him. Again and again. Congress is a co-equal branch of government, at least theoretically. There's no reason to capitulate to Mr. 25% on a war that even fewer want.

This is exactly what Democrats did not do in the spring when they ended up funding the war without attaching any provisions that the anti-war activists were asking for. And they did it again in July by voting in favor to authorize wiretapping after the Administration refused to accept any compromise legislation.

But we are now much closer to the primary season, and the Democratic candidates are pressuring each other to take bolder stances on the Iraq issue. With Obama, Clinton and Edwards the Democrats' public face right now, how much room does the Party have left to accept Bush's preferred legislation the way it did in the spring? The proximity of the presidential election reduces the probability Democrats yield to the Administration.