Well, David Axelrod's incoherent flip-floppery yesterday on the administration's "accelerated timetable" for withdrawal in Afghanistan makes a lot more sense in light of today's testimony by Secretary Gates, Secretary Clinton, and Admiral Mullen in the Senate.

Dana Milbank explains:

In his speech to the West Point cadets and the nation on Tuesday night, Obama said he planned, conditionally, "to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011" -- a gesture intended to assuage the antiwar left. But in questioning top administration officials Wednesday morning, it didn't take long for members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to learn that this withdrawal timeline was more of a fuzzy aspiration than a commitment. [snip]

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) delivered the coup de grace.

"Is it possible, in December 2010, to reach the conclusion it is not wise to withdraw anyone in July 2011?"

"The president, as commander in chief, always has the option to adjust his decisions," answered Gates.

"Admiral Mullen, is it your understanding that it's possible . . . not to begin to withdraw in 2011?"

"The president has choices," answered Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"Have we locked ourselves into leaving, Secretary Clinton, in July 2011?"

"I do not believe we have locked ourselves into leaving," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton answered.

So there you have it. The administration's July 2011 "deadline" isn't really a deadline in the traditional sense of the word. It appears the White House proffered it as something much more concrete in an attempt to placate Obama's left wing base.

Woods has released a statement on his website that reads, in part:

I have let my family down and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart. I have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves. I am not without faults and I am far short of perfect. I am dealing with my behavior and personal failings behind closed doors with my family. Those feelings should be shared by us alone. [snip]

The stories in particular that physical violence played any role in the car accident were utterly false and malicious. Elin has always done more to support our family and shown more grace than anyone could possibly expect. [snip]

I will strive to be a better person and the husband and father that my family deserves. For all of those who have supported me over the years, I offer my profound apology.

Blue Dog Democrat John Tanner will retire at the end of his term.  Tanner, who hadn't faced a tough election effort since facing off against future Republican Representative Ed Bryant during his first election in 1988 (he won with 62% of the vote) was facing a potentially tough race against farmer and gospel singer Stephen Fincher. Tanner's district has an R+6 PVI, but has not sent a Republican to Congress since 1872. In other news of the "Sean's spent waaaaay too much time studying Congressional elections" variety, the Eighth Congressional District is a largely intact descendant of the district Daniel Boone represented in Congress for three terms.

David Axelrod had trouble making sense in an interview with Wolf Blitzer previewing the President's big speech tonight:

BLITZER: Now, what is this talk of starting to withdraw troops, though, within three years?

AXELROD:  Well, the president will talk about this tonight.  But there -- there will be a time frame under which we will begin withdrawing these -- the troops -- this additional level that we're now adding.  And, you know, we're -- we will have enough of a time frame to begin showing results for the additional troops and the training.  We believe we'll be in a position to -- to make that -- to make that transference.  We want to target the -- the enemy there.  We want to train the Afghan Army.  And then we want to transfer responsibility.  And this will all be on an accelerated timetable.

BLITZER:  So you're basically suggesting you -- you can do all that within three years? Is that the goal?

AXELROD:  I'm not putting a -- a time -- an end, you know, a timetable.  I think, as with Iraq, we will begin a -- we will begin to draw down on those troops and we will do it in conjunction with the commanders on the ground, you know, at a pace that we feel is responsible.  But we will -- you know, this is a -- the president made clear, this is a -- an action that has a -- has an end to it. (all emphasis added)

So in one breath Axelrod says Obama's plan will adhere to an "accelerated timetable," and in the next he says that they're not not putting a timetable on the withdrawal plan, even though they've declared this will all be done in three years?

A rather striking visual representation of the deteriorating public support for President Obama's handling of Afghanistan over the last four months:

Will Obama's speech tonight reverse this trend? I'm skeptical. He may receive a short term positive bump for finally making a decision and for a prime time turn as Commander in Chief, but ulitmately I think his "middle way"gambit of adding more troops initially while simultaneously declaring a hard and fast three year pullout schedule will not move public opinion. Put another way, by trying to please both sides he'll end up pleasing neither in the end.

Politico's top editor, John Harris, wrote a piece Monday headlined: “7 stories Obama doesn't want told.” It was a well-written summary of the narratives that are floating around the Obama presidency.

Many prominent liberal blogs immediately took issue with the story. They believe those narratives are wrong. Of course, that does not mean the narratives aren't real.

The White House also pushed back. And that pushback is worth discussing. Marc Ambinder highlights a leaked White House email titled, “7 narratives Politico is fighting in their efforts to get an interview with the President.” Take point three in the email: Politico is “more interested in gossip than news.”

Consider the source. Obama's team has peddled its share of gossip. Obama's 2008 campaign manager, David Plouffe, recently admitted: “It was our researchers who found John Edwards' infamous $400 hair cut expenditures.” They passed that “research” along.

Full disclosure, I worked for Politico. I personally understand the issues with some of Politico's reportage. But so does Harris. It's journalism's perennial vegetable versus dessert argument. Put simply, Politico's more sensational reporting can be debated but it clearly satisfies a demand. That demand has grown with the cable and online beast. And it takes more than policy to feed that beast. This is also Politico not Policyco, as some staff frame the point.

Ironically, Harris' article concerned a substantial issue. Presidencies rise and fall on narratives. It's why JFK canceled the New York Herald Tribune subscription. Why W. kept his folks off MSNBC. Why this White House took the obsession to new heights with Fox.

To be sure, Obama's team follows the storyline minute by minute. Take one morning on MSNBC's “Morning Joe.” Not so long ago, the panel was discussing an exchange between Jake Tapper and Robert Gibbs. The White House instantly emailed Mika Brzezinski: “that interaction with Jake Tapper was not heated.” Talk about the never-ending campaign.

Narratives do count. They should be covered. Themes can control presidents. Tonight, Obama is to talk war. It's worth recalling how narratives drove LBJ in war. He bombed because no one, least of all that flyboy Goldwater, would say he was weak.

LBJ relates to the email's last point: Politico is “more obsessed with personality than policy.” Politics is policy and personality. Recall the most professorial of presidents. Woodrow Wilson's headstrong temper, his unwillingness to compromise with Republicans like Henry Cabot Lodge, sundered the League of Nations.

Candidates have always obsessed over the power of public personality. Abraham Lincoln the “rail-splitter.” Teddy Roosevelt never photographed in his tennis whites. FDR's use of leg braces. JFK hiding his Addison's disease and tossing the football. Frail Reagan on horseback. W, who stayed stateside during Vietnam, wearing a uniform as president (even Ike never did that).

It's why Obama resented being photographed at the beach with his shirt off. But, lest we forget, Obama wanted to put forward a fit image. He found time to work out in crowded gyms during the campaign (including my old gym near Dupont Circle).

Since the TV age, the president has starred in our national political soap opera. And Obama's team has sought, like no president since Reagan, to provide a show.

Recall Obama's tour abroad as the Democratic nominee. On day one, Plouffe recounts in his new book, Obama calls Plouffe after the meeting with the troops in Iraq.

“Did you hear about my shot?” Obama asked Plouffe. Obama recounted how he swooshed that three-pointer. “Money,” Obama said.

“When I saw the pictures I understood why he was crowing. It was a pretty awesome scene,” Plouffe writes. “Barack in dress shirt and pants, casually knocking a three on his first attempt while the troops went nuts. A pretty good first day, I thought.”

To Plouffe, the basketball image made it a good first day. And it was a great image. Money! But this is the same Obama staff that ridiculed coverage of Obama's bowling blunder.

On day two in Iraq, Plouffe emphasizes the “terrific front-page photos of Obama in sunglasses and radio gear” on the helicopter. “He looked like a leader.” Plouffe proceeded to contrast that image with John McCain riding around in a golf cart (they occurred at about the same time). Plouffe used the McCain image “in every ad I could.”

Obama's circle cannot act like they are above the very thing they are behind. They pass around gossip about Edwards' haircut. They fixate on the presidential image (remember the campaign seal). And therefore, Obama's acolytes surrender their right to lecture on the superficiality of our politics. Obama's team champions personality when it suits their interests.

It was Obama who ran on the most nebulous of political narratives: “change.” This White House understands the substance of themes. It's likely why Obama's staff was irked by Harris' story.

A couple of weeks ago on Fox News Sunday, Liz Cheney set off a round of (somewhat far fetched) speculation about her father running for president when she blurted out "Cheney 2012" in the middle of a panel discussion on national security.

Today, in an interview with Politico, the former Vice President put the kibosh any talk of a 2012 run, saying, "“Why would I want to do that? It's been a hell of a tour. I've loved it. I have no aspirations for further office.”

So we can strike Dick Cheney from our list of possible Republican dark horses.  To see who else is still on the list, click here.

John Daly is giving you advice on public relations.

One of the cornerstones of Barack Obama's Presidential coalition was the youth vote, which gave him 66% of the vote in 2008; his best age group by 14 points. While most pollsters have shown him maintaining higher approval ratings among young voters relative to other voters, SurveyUSA -- one of the most accurate pollsters in the past few cycles -- begs to differ. Their poll of adults in nine states -- which taken together are a pretty decent sample of the country as a whole -- shows only one state, Kentucky, where his approval rating is substantially higher than among other age groups.

Perhaps more worrisome for the President is that he breaks even or is under water in all states but two. New York and California each give him a tepid 53% approval rating. In 2008 he won 63% of the vote in New York and 61% of the vote in California.