I am probably going to get sandblasted for saying this,  but I have very mixed feelings about Edwards' position on the Iraq Supplemental.  It is pretty darn easy to set on the sidelines and take a position that you know is popular with Democrats primary voters, but that has no chance of succeeding in Congress.

"Send him the same bill again and again," is a great slogan, but it isn't going to happen.  The Senate Dems needed a very reluctant Nelson, and Repubs, Hagel and Smith, to pass the bill that was vetoed.  

I would have more respect for Edwards, if he was articulating some sort of "do-able" strategy.  Instead he is going to feed the common misconception that the Dems just don't have enough backbone.  The truth is, to use one of JE's favorite statements, they don't have enough votes.

OTOH, Obama has kept a pretty low profile, but he has been talking about "the short leash" option for weeks.  In my mind, Obama scores points for pushing a do-able strategy that maintains some sort of pressure on Bush and that helps the Dems save some face.  If this is an example of the difference between "the pragmatist" and "the progressive ideologue," I say score one for the pragmatist.

I am sure many will disagree.  I am interested to hear other people's take on this situation.

One direction leads straight to more war with no end in sight. It's a road paved with symbolic deauthorization bills and so-called temporary extensions that give Bush all the money he needs without ever actually bringing a single troop home.

But in the other direction lies real action--using Congress' funding power right now to pass another binding plan to force George Bush to actually end this war.

snip

The latest news from Washington is that Congress is considering abandoning their binding plan to end the war and instead give Bush another extension--probably until September. This is completely irresponsible. When September rolls around, we'll be right back in the same place and Bush will push for another extension, just like he's been doing for years.

This has to stop now. It's already clear that the escalation has failed. Bush has no authority to use American troops to police a civil war, but that's what he's doing. There is no military solution to the sectarian violence in Iraq.

Enough is enough. It's time to end the war. And that means no more extensions, no more delays, no more non-binding anything.

wow! I was wondering who would go up first among the big 3, how soon to Hillary and Obama go up? Eignt months of this good grief.

I recall that Harry Reid came out in favor of the Feingold proposal to defund the war. But now he is criticizing Edwards for demanding that Congress stand up to Bush?

The issue here isn't that the Democrats don't have enough votes to override a veto, it is whether the Democrats in Congress have the backbone to stand up united against Bush's war. I think that the Democrats should stand firm and use every opportunity to make it known that Bush is the one not funding the troops. This isn't just PR, it is the truth.