by Evie Stone

Good morning, all.

Barack Obama is in Amman, Jordan after touring Iraq yesterday. His visit to the war zone included a helicopter tour with General David Petraeus — an opportunity not just for catching up on ground conditions in Iraq, but for swashbuckling photos that made opponent John McCain's Kennebunkport golf cart ride with former President George H.W. Bush look pretty minor...and, well, a little geriatric.

So far it would be difficult to characterize Obama's overseas trip as anything but successful. The Iraqi government's re-confirmation of their desire for a timeline that would phase out the US troop presence by 2010 and the Bush administration's diplomatic meeting with the Iranians would seem to bolster positions of Obama's (phased withdrawal from Iraq, negotiating with enemies) that McCain has derided during the campaign.

But the McCain campaign continues to exploit a weakness in Obama's Iraq postion: that he opposed the troop surge that has by all accounts dramatically lessened violence in Iraq. During his visit with the 41st President in Kennebunkport, McCain called Obama "completely wrong" on Iraq, and pointed out that his opponent has "no military experience whatsoever." Then yesterday Obama provided the McCain camp with a helpful sound bite on that front in an interview with ABC's Terry Moran, who asked if, knowing what he knows now, he would still support the surge. Via Jake Tapper:

"No," Obama said. "These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with and one that I continue to disagree with is to look narrowly at Iraq and not focus on these broader issues."

This is a toughie for Obama: either stick to his guns despite evidence that the surge has provided progress in Iraq or admit that his judgment was wrong. Both scenarios cause headaches...he can either be stubborn, or he can be a flip-flopper. So far, he's opted for stubbornness.

And yesterday the blogosphere was busy after Drudge reported that the New York Times had rejected a McCain op-ed on Iraq to counterbalance Obama's from last week. Times op-ed editor David Shipley said the McCain piece was too reactive, and didn't provide new information about McCain's policies:

The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.

It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator's Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.

But First Amendment advocates need not fear, as the New York Post has generously stepped in and published the McCain piece as originally penned. In some ways, the final shakeout went about as well as possible for McCain: his column attracted much more attention than it would have received if the NYT had published it in the first place, with the added bonus that he got into a public dustup with a paper that's reviled by the right. Double happiness!

Coming up today: Obama holds a news conference at the Citadel overlooking Amman, Jordan before heading to Israel. McCain holds a town hall meeting in Rochester, NH.