Tomorrow, I am pleased to say, will be my last day at my day job, which has been good to me as its allowed me to actually blog during down time as I paid the bills. What that means for me this week, though, is that, while I am training my replacement I'm less able to post, hence my relative silence today. What it also means is that I haven't been able to delve into the General Petraeus hearings today. Luckily there's Talking Points Memo which has video, transcripts and analysis of the candidates' appearances in front of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker today. Here are videos of Senators Clinton and Obama questioning Petraeus and Crocker.

Senator Clinton:

Senator Obama:

I agree with dday though that one of the most significant moments of the questioning today came from a former candidate, Joe Biden, when he asked Amb. Crocker whether it would be better for American national security interests to eliminate Al Qaeda in Iraq or Al Qaeda along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Crocker's reluctant answer:

"I would therefore pick Al Qaeda on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."

As dday says:

The Ambassdor to Iraq just admitted that Iraq is not the central front in the war on terror. He just admitted that the potential for Al Qaeda to gain a beachhead in Iraq should the United States withdraw is miniscule compared to the already-established beachhead along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. He admitted that the global fight against terror is currently misdirected.

Did you watch? What were your thoughts? What else is going on today?

There's more...

Between General Petraeus's testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, and Senator Obama's planned Iraq speech tomorrow, it looks as though this week could end up shifting the focus on Obama away from his good judgment 5 years ago to his leadership as a senator today, which could ultimately serve to quell voters' fears about his readiness to be president.

Obama's statement yesterday was a less than auspicious beginning, considering the fact that while it stressed immediacy of the need to withdraw troops...

The time to end the surge and to start bringing our troops home is now - not six months from now.

...there was a conspicuous absence of an end date for withdrawal, leading some to speculate that perhaps Obama is leaving himself room to embrace an open-ended bill.

Chris Dodd for one, pounced.

While we are glad that Senator Obama has called for a change of course in Iraq, he isn't clear as to what he will do to make that happen, or when. [...]

We urge Senator Obama, and all the other candidates in the Senate, to state clearly and directly whether or not they will support Iraq legislation if it does not include a firm, enforceable deadline to begin and complete the redeployment of troops from Iraq.

I do wonder if that criticism will stick, however, since Obama did introduce a bill early this year that would have brought the troops home by March 2008 -- his credentials on that are clear. But I appreciate the role Dodd has taken up here, pushing both Obama and Clinton to err on the side of clarity and away from nuance. Dodd's use of his position in the senate to both talk the talk AND walk the walk, something Edwards has the luxury not to have to do as an ex-senator, is invaluable.

My doubts as to the effectiveness of that argument were further reinforced after seeing Obama actually confront Petraeus and Crocker today. He used his time to pretty much give a speech and he came off as thoughtful, sincere and evenhanded yet tough. Greg Sargent does a good job of breaking down his best moments. I'd agree with Sargent that his best came at the end of his time when he pretty much revealed the hollowness of Petraeus and Crocker's dog and pony show:

"If we're there the same place a year from now can you please describe for me any circumstances in which you would make a different recommendation and suggest it is now time for us to start withdrawing our troops? Any scenario. Any set of benchmarks, that have not been met."

The lack of any definitive answer told us all we needed to know.

Tim Grieve at Salon also makes a good point:

Yes, Obama said, the "surge" has had some impact. "I would hope it would, given the sacrifices and loss that have been made," he said. But the political progress that was supposed to come hasn't come. Echoing the words a young John Kerry said nearly 40 years ago, Obama asked: "How long will this take, "and at what point do we say, 'Enough'?"

Watch it:

As the Petraeus testimony is taking place against the backdrop of the 2008 presidential election with four sitting Democratic senators running, it's impossible to separate it from the political ramifications on the presidential race. What may be most important about what happens today for Obama politically, is the extent to which it gives a rare glimpse of him in action as a senator. Questions remain, however, will it get widely reported and viewed and will Senator Clinton blunt the impact with her own confrontation with Crocker and Petraeus later on in the day?

There's more...