Seems too subtle a shift to make a short-term difference and I rather doubt the rhetorical shift is working its way into the campaigns of various Republicans or the political advertising.

The main mood in the electorate seems to be simple exasperation with the current President and Congress. This is fed by the perception of failure in Iraq and the unending corruption scandals. This is why this year feels so much like 1994.

Interestingly, though, it does not seem to me that the Democrats have been able to close the deal, like the GOP did in 1980 ("There you go again") and 1994 ("Contract with America -- by golly, those Repubs do have a plan!!). This may be because the Dems have steadfastly avoided anything identifiable in their campaigns as a governing philosophy, other than "We're not Bush, and we're not daft enough to try to impeach him."

I don't think what Dan says here is wrong, necessarily, but the White House's rhetorical shift seems to me merely a ratification of something that was happening anyway. This election was bound to be largely a referendum on foreign policy and the war in particular, and holding to the same message on Iraq would only have reinforced the Democrats' theme that the President is out of touch.

Incidentally, it doesn't look to me as if the Democrats have made the best use of all the GOP's difficulties this fall. There is a limit to the number of Republican voters who will stay home (let alone vote for Democrats) because they disagree with their President about a war. Many Republicans who still like Bush, though, can be really put off by Congress. The Democrats had -- I think they still have -- an opportunity to use the Foley scandal as a hook on which to hang corruption investigations, wasteful government spending, one and a half-day Congressional work weeks, and indeed anything else that even sounds scandalous, and blame everything on Republican incumbents. They haven't done this very well. The problem, I suspect, is that nationally Democrats are still much too oriented to protecting their own incumbents. They're used to playing defense, not offense. Individual Democratic challengers, like Baron Hill in southern Indiana, have started to use the corruption issue more effectively, but the party generally has not.

It may turn out that voter disenchantment this year is so great that Democrats will pick up 30+ House seats and 6-7 Senate seats regardless. I'm just saying that in the Democrats' position I wouldn't assume Republicans who still support Bush are sure GOP votes this fall.

I think Drezner is spot on. This is disaster, not just for the mid-terms but for the remaining two years of the current Presidency. Bush was already fighting an undercurrent of Red State voters who thought we weren't doing enough in Iraq, this new timetable/alternative policy is going to add fuel to that fire.

And BTW, I don't think the Vietnam analogy is all that good. To me the better analogy is late 1951 Korea: stalemate in the field and growing resistance at home. What's particularly interesting is that it looks like Bush is going to get to play the role of both Truman AND Eisenhower.

Accountability without consequences, benchmarks without timetables, responsibility without results, it's the new politics.

Bush allowed Dems to redefine what staying the course actually means. The only alternative at this point is to help people remember what he's always said i.e., we must stay in Iraq until victory, but that doesn't mean we will not change our tactics and adjust troop levels as appropriate to obtain that victory.

It is very simple and always has beeen. Look at the demographics of the country. Beyond the obsession with Saddam, the outcome of this thing was written large as far back as 1991.

Having a Shia majority state and significant boon and prop for Iran was inevitable if you were going to try and setup a legitimate and stable goverenment.

The trouble is that there are lot of folks in the administration and in business who find this outcome untenable. They won't ever talk about it openly but their "Victory" is truely something indefinite and colonial.

Far from losing only if leave, it was lost before we began by failing to plan for what would happen. From low expectations to none at all.