Would you have ever imagined the New York Times, less than a year before the presidential elections, not only admitting that things are getting better in Iraq, but also suggesting Democrats – including those campaigning for president – were wrong about the surge?

On the front page of its popular Sunday edition, no less?

Well, there it was this morning, in big, bold letters: “As Democrats See Security Gains in Iraq, Tone Shifts.”

Hold on to your seats, for that was the first shock. Just look at how the piece began, especially the first five words (emphasis added throughout):

As violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq: acknowledging that success, trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy.

Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains.

Coincidentally, and somewhat telling, such appears to be the same conclusion the Times has made recently. Interesting that the “newspaper of record” in this nation and leading Democrats are changing their tune at almost exactly the same time, almost like they’re tied at the hip. But there’s more:

But the changing situation suggests for the first time that the politics of the war could shift in the general election next year, particularly if the gains continue. While the Democratic candidates are continuing to assail the war — a popular position with many of the party’s primary voters — they run the risk that Republicans will use those critiques to attack the party’s nominee in the election as defeatist and lacking faith in the American military.

Amazing. But what wait:

If security continues to improve, President Bush could become less of a drag on his party, too, and Republicans may have an easier time zeroing in on other issues, such as how the Democrats have proposed raising taxes in difficult economic times.

Shocking, yes? And quite in line with what folks like conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, and former White House adviser Karl Rove, have been emphatically saying for months: this election will not be about Iraq, but, instead, about the future of this nation.

If such ends up being the case, this can’t possibly be good news for Democrats -- or media members -- that have bet the ranch on the war failing miserably, and troops returning in shame:

Lately, as the killing in Baghdad and other areas has declined, the Democratic candidates have been dwelling less on the results of the troop escalation than on the lack of new government accords in Iraq — a tonal shift from last summer and fall when American military commanders were preparing to testify before Congress asking for more time to allow the surge to show results.

This is a delicate matter. By saying the effects of the troop escalation have not led to a healthier political environment, the candidates are tacitly acknowledging that the additional troops have, in fact, made a difference on the ground — a viewpoint many Democratic voters might not embrace.

Indeed. This is especially true for the MoveOn.org/Michael Moore/Netroots ultra-leftwing segment of the Democrat Party the presidential candidates have spent a lot of time courting, and desperately need to win next November.

If the discussion in the next eleven months shifts as suggested, this can’t possibly be good news for the anti-war left:

While the war remains a top issue for many Democratic voters, the candidates are also turning to pocketbook concerns with new intensity as the nominating contests approach in January. Mrs. Clinton devoted a week to her energy plans recently, and spent Monday and Tuesday talking about the economy. Mr. Obama, meanwhile, still draws strong applause from audiences when he criticizes Congress for authorizing the war and Mr. Bush for waging it, but he is increasingly highlighting other concerns.

“We’ve never seen gas above $3 in November,” Mr. Obama told a crowd on a recent evening in Allison, Iowa. “People are working harder for less. Folks are maxing out on their credit cards, trying to stay afloat. People are struggling. And it doesn’t seem like Washington is listening.”

Clearly, as the campaign moves into the primaries, the Democrat candidates are changing their tune, but so are the media who are finally recognizing the dramatic improvement in Iraq.

Better late than never, guys. Welcome to the party.