He looks good in a helicopter. That’s what counts.
And, it was such a brave move to travel to the war zone where he had not visited in 3 years…
Oh, but it’s really his favorite thing to do. 
The anti-McCain daily gave a glowing review to their loony antiwar candidate in the war zone today:
For Obama, a First Step Is Not a Misstep
The Iraqi government on Monday left little doubt that it favors a withdrawal plan for American combat troops similar to what Senator Barack Obama has proposed, providing Mr. Obama with a potentially powerful political boost on a day he spent in Iraq working to fortify his credibility as a wartime leader.
After a day spent meeting Iraqi leaders and American military commanders, Mr. Obama seemed to have navigated one of the riskiest parts of a weeklong international trip without a noticeable hitch and to have gained a new opportunity to blunt attacks on his national security credentials by his Republican rival in the presidential race, Senator John McCain…
Umm. So this antiwar lib travels to Iraq and Prime Minister Maliki says he would like to see US combat forces out of Iraq as long as progress continues (something Obama has never said) and this is a win for Obama?
Someone, please explain that.
How can an antiwar candidate vote against the Bush Surge– a brave maneuver that saved the Middle East from catastrophe, the international community from economic turmoil, and America her reputation– then say he’d do it again after undeniable succes– and still get glowing remarks from the media?
What’s wrong with this picture?
Is it because he looks good in shades? What?
The Washington Post was also impressed with how he handled the heat:
…As political theater, the events of the past few days have played unfailingly in the Democrat’s favor. On Friday, a day after Obama left for Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush administration officials announced that the United States and Iraq had agreed on a time horizon for removing troops. Then, twice in three days, Maliki embraced a withdrawal timeline similar to Obama’s. Beyond that, McCain shifted ground to declare that he, too, favors sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.
Although not as in the tank as the NYT’s piece, the WaPo still lavished their antiwar candidate with praise for his brief jaunt through Iraq.
It’s funny that neither one of these rags mentioned that Obama wimped out on discussing timelines with Maliki.
ABC News was equally impressed when their Democrat said he will not ‘rubber stamp’ the military, as if his non-military experience and lack of good sense should trump the generals in the field.
And, of course, MSNBC is impressed with anything Obama does including this brave hop, skip and jump through Iraq.
Only, our liberal media could spin this unqualified antiwar Democrat who would rather win an election than a war as a viable candidate during wartime.
Confederate Yankee (via Instapundit) adds:
If we had listened to Barack Obama in 2002, Saddam Hussein (or his murderous son Qusay) would still be brutally repressing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Shiites and Kurds, and some of the world’s most accomplished terrorists (such as Abu Abbas, 1993 WTC bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi) would still be calling Iraq home. I doubt Obama would be flying to Baghdad.
If we had listened to him in 2005-2006 when things were at their worst, then the nightmare scenario of an open Iraqi civil war fought with the backing of Saudi Arabia and Iran and verging on a wider regional war would possibly be playing out. I doubt Obama would be flying to Baghdad.
Related media bias… Last night one media reporter and one media cameraman met John McCain when he landed in Manchester, NH.
