This week at the Book Club, Bill Bishop is joining us to discuss The Big Sort: Why The Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart. He opens the discussion with a simple calculation: “In 1976, about a quarter of the voters lived in a county where either Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford won by 20 percentage points or more. The number of people living in landslide communities increased steadily over the next seven presidential elections. And by 2004, in another very close vote, nearly half of all voters lived in one of these landslide communities.”

We noted over the weekend that the Washington Post all but ignored the initial story of Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki announcing his support for Barack Obama’s 16 month withdrawal plan. Now that the Iraqi government’s de facto embrace of Obama’s timetable (or something very close to it) is undeniable, the Post is highlighting the claim that the Iraqis’ timetable is allegedly eight months longer than Obama’s.

See WaPo currently front page hed …

But is eight months even accurate? There appear to be contending translations of precisely what Iraqi government spokesman al-Dabbagh said, specifically whether he said during 2010 or by the end the year. The Times suggests that Reuters and the AP are the sources of the contending translations …

Mr. Obama described his talk with Mr. Maliki as “a wonderful visit,” but news agencies reported that a government spokesman said that they did not discuss the timing of any troop withdrawal. However, the spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, addressed the issue. According to Reuters, he said, “We cannot give any timetables or dates but the Iraqi government believes the end of 2010 is the appropriate time for the withdrawal.” The Associated Press quoted Mr. Dabbagh as saying, “We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq,” but noting that any plans would have to change should violence rise.

Now, eight months seems a tad off regardless since presumably the clock on Obama’s 16 months would start counting on roughly Feb.1st 2009 — days after the inauguration of Bush’s successor. But set that aside for the moment.

In this clip from MSNBC, al-Dabbagh says “up to 2010.”

To be clear, precisely what al-Dabbagh said does seem a tad unclear at the moment. And I’d like more clarity on that question. But on the broader point, I’d hate to think the transparent agenda of the abysmal Post OpEd is bleeding over into the newsroom, whose news coverage, especially on foreign affairs, is consistently excellent.

A new Public Policy Polling shows a slight, within-the-margin-of-error narrowing in Obama’s lead in Ohio, from 11 to 8 points.

With the Iraqis now walking back their walk-back, I think the translation issue is now moot. Here’s spokesman al-Dabbagh, the guy who put out the walk-back statement released by CentCom, speaking just after Maliki’s meeting with Obama. The new line. No need to call it Obama’s timetable but we want a timetable with the exact same period of time.

Even the networks can’t avoid it …

Late Update: It must be getting serious. As TPM Reader EL points out, even The Page can’t avoid it.

Breaking: Matt Drudge doesn’t rule our world anymore.

Following up on the ‘Surge’ and Obama, here’s some good analysis from Juan Cole.

After the events of the weekend, and taking into account the McCain camp’s response to Maliki’s statements, it seems that John McCain now plans to run his campaign almost entirely on the surge, and his claim that he was right about it and Obama wrong.

Even taking that claim on its own terms, though, is that enough?

McCain implicitly concedes that he was wrong on getting into the war itself (concedes in as much as public opinion is firmly on the side of his being wrong and he realizes that). He’s also now all but forced to concede to Obama’s stand on the timing of withdrawal, in as much as the Iraqis are now being clear that they want US troops out in roughly the same period of time.

So he goes to the public with Obama being right and him wrong on starting the war in the first place and with the timing and approach to getting out — but along the way he was right about the surge, so he should be president?

Maybe the hypothetical Barack says to the hypothetical McCain, “Fine, I’ll take the hit on the surge. And you cop to being wrong about getting us into this mess in the first place and supporting it for years. And we’ll call it even.”

I find McCain’s claim to being ‘right about the surge’ dubious but arguable. But even if you concede that, it leaves McCain talking about the past and conceding the real issue that is before the public.