What Does "Winning In Iraq" Mean For Obama?

Even the folk at the Washington Post found they could no longer view the war in Iraq like Helen Keller viewed ROY G BIV after a rainfall. In a recent editorial they had to open blind eyes and declare, "Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war." Yes, Virginia, there must be a sanity clause in their newsroom. The editorial went on to explain:

There's been a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks -- which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war. While Washington's attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have "never been closer to defeat than they are now."

Of course, all of this begs the question: if the rest of the media begins treating the war with a thimbleful of honesty, what is Barack Obama supposed to do? The lamb from Illinois has built his campaign on the folly of Iraq and even Husseined Hillary with his own liberal WMD by repeating that she once supported the war while he always knew it would fail. Could we see yet another Obamanable flip-flop?