The New York Daily News has a story today, "Dem Voters No Longer Fight Battle of Iraq," reporting that on the campaign trail "Iraq seldom comes up these days - even for Hillary Clinton, who was grilled relentlessly on her vote to authorize the war when she launched her campaign."

"Clinton does well among blue-collar, working-class people, so a focus on domestic issues could help her," said the University of New Hampshire's Dante Scala. "On the other [hand], if people feel less threatened, they may be more willing to take a chance on [Barack] Obama."

It's an interesting question, and certainly there are good arguments that the success of the surge could help either Obama or Clinton -- or even Edwards. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that over the past year all the Democratic candidates have converged toward near-identical positions of withdrawal. Of course there are nuances to be found, but perhaps the issue of Iraq was already receding as a deciding point for Democratic voters even before the success of the surge took the war off the front pages.

As for which candidate benefits more, your guess is as good as mine.

However the war plays in the Democratic race, it's a good bet that it will come (pardon the pun) surging back during the general election.

Which is as good a segue as any to mention John McCain's new ad, "Never Surrender":