Quick Background:
Of course, I know that this is already going on and has been going on for some time. Some Republicans (Cole) are even salivating at the thought of running against an Obama candidacy that is perceived as being weak on security issues.

The Main Stream Media just seems to be lapping up such fluff.

The response of Cokie Roberts on the Sunday, April 6th TV talk show This Week is a perfect example.  Cokie essentially endorsed John McCain, explaining how seemingly irreducibly difficult it would be to counter McCain's "we must win in Iraq" argument.  She blathered:

ROBERTS: Convincing the electorate of [withdrawing from Iraq] I think would be very difficult, and I also agree that the notion that Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham you heard this morning putting forward, that Americans would prefer to win...

(See the DKOS diary "1804: What Americans Want" by mcjoan for more on this exchange and for the video)
Here Cokie essentially endorsed John McCain's rhetorical flourish.  She scoffed at the idea that a candidate might be able to offer a compelling, counter argument to such nonsense and belittled the idea that a candidate might be able to take a different position than McCain and the Republicans and win.  

My Bad Analogy:

Republicans are treating Iraq like a board game.

I don't think that Americans want to lose.  Of course they don't.  No one does.  But to leave it at that is just foolish.  We have to stay in because we don't want to lose.  That same philosophy, the kind employed by 8 year old kids, is a simplistic way of talking about a maddeningly complex conflict.

So, let's stay with simple...with Iraq-as-a-board-game analogy and assume we are talking to a bunch of 8 year-olds.  

Talking to his grandson Johnny Grandpa McCain might say something like:

Grandpa:  "Well Johnny, you don't want to lose that game do you?  Your honor is at stake and you can't just quit the game you are playing."  

An adult might respond with something like:

"Ok, you can keep playing, but then you get no dinner or desert, I will take away your allowance, and you still have to do all your chores.  Oh yeah, and your children's children will still be paying for this game long after you have past away."  

In other words, there is a consequence for staying and playing.  Not to mention that there also is no guarantee you will actually win the game either.  

In fact (carrying the already strained and absurd analogy to its breaking point) you are actually losing the game when Grandpa McCain suggests that you will must stay in the game (forever) to defend your honor.

Oh yeah, one more point:  poll after poll indicates that most of you wants to stop playing the game and, in fact, think that even beginning to play the game in the first place was a mistake.

The rational outcome of all this would be to stop listening to Grandpa McCain and crazy Aunt Cokie and put the game away.  Dad then drives his war mongering relatives home (or to the nut house) and hopefully you don't see them again until next Christmas.  

Quick Conclusion
OK, upon reflection it's a pretty bad analogy.  But it seems to me we are in a kind of Bizaro Land when supposedly thoughtful people like Cokie Roberts just can't seem to get beyond the boiled down simplicity of "Americans would prefer to win." I know what some of you will say but I remember a time when Cokie actually was thoughtful.

I don't actually recommend that anyone respond the way I just did.  After watching Barack Obama's speech on race, I am certain that he will find a way to counter the 8-year-old think coming from the McCain camp.  When he does, even if the ya-yas and hangers-on in the MSM don't follow him, the people will.  Actually, John Stewart said it best on the Daily Show after Obama's "race speech":  "he talked to us as if we were adults."

Let's put away the board games kids and listen up.