JK gets an honorable mention, and this article is worth a read:

[babylonsister]

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/07/26/maliki_dead_man_walking.php

snip//

Partially obscured by Israel’s rampage in Lebanon, which has grabbed the headlines, the war in Iraq grinds on. Durbin highlighted the fact that since the start of the Lebanon war, Israel has lost 22 soldiers, while over the same period the United States has lost 24 killed in Iraq. It’s too early to say to what extent the Democrats intend to draw a bright line between themselves and the Republicans over the war, but according to a well-connected Democrat, the party is coalescing around the need to embrace some hybrid of the get-out-now position—supported by Kerry, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, and others—and the let’s-start-thinking-about-getting-out view put forward by Reid and Carl Levin of Michigan. Standing in the way is Joe Lieberman, who may become an also-ran as of August 8, and, of course, Hillary Clinton. It’s fair to say that if America remains in Iraq through January 2009, it will be the fault of Hillary and Bill (“Re-Elect Joe”) Clinton.

The fact is, getting out of Iraq is a winning position, despite efforts by the GOP and Maliki to link the war to the struggle against al-Qaida. Even Republicans, especially those in swing districts in the Northeast and the Midwest, are getting the message. Last week, Rep. Gil Gutknecht, a six-term Republican congressman from Minnesota, put it bluntly: “What the White House is saying is, ‘Stay the course, stay the course.’ I don’t think that course is politically sustainable.”

One highly placed political insider told me: “There are people in the party, on the Hill and in the White House, who see a political train wreck coming.” If the Democrats win back one or both houses of Congress in November, he said, that would unleash a series of investigative hearings on Iraq, the war on terrorism, and civil liberties that could fatally weaken the administration and remove the last props of political support for the war. And that prospect has moved many moderate GOPers, such as Rep. Chris Shays of Connecticut, Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, and Jim Gerlach and Charles Dent of Pennsylvania to question the Bush administration’s stay-the-course idiocy.

snip//

[karynnj]

1. Great news - but I really wish

they wouldn't call it "get out now", when it is "get out over the next 12 months". I also can't see how they can compromise between the 2 because the biggest difference is that one is a binding, specific plan while the other is a call on Bush to create a plan that starts to get us out. K/F was already a compromise to bring in those they could. What would people have them change? Kerry as the sponsor?

[TayTay]

2. No, I think they are very happy to have Kerry in the lead

But I think the Dems are sensing that the tide of public opinion is changing and they want to begin to edge toward that. The Rethugs are stuck now. They dug themselves into that position in June when they strongly categorized anyone who wanted to withdraw, deadline or no, as a 'cut and run' person. They can't now switch without looking like flip-floppers.

It's the Dems who have room for lateral movement on this. They set the parameters for this in that June debate when they showed that the range goes from withdraw according to on-the-ground benchmarks to witchdraw under time limits. They are free to explore what lies between and genuinely move the Party's position forward.

This is not a loss for Kerry. You don't lose, as a legislator, if you don't get everything you want. You have moved the ball forward, in this case, a lot forward. It is a win for that side, though you won't hear any RW friendly media acknolwedging that.

The Rethugs have no wiggle room at all. They dug this hole themselves, I hope the Dems bury them in it.

[whometense]

3. One question:

If the Rethugs are stuck (and I do believe they are), what does this say about the prospects of Holy Joe and HRC??

It seems to me that HRC has triangulated herself into a corner from which there is no exit, no matter how many bloggers she hires. What do you think?

[TayTay]

5. The Senator from NY is in the position of defending the status quo

Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt, didn't work. (Fairly or unfairly. Life is, btw, unfair.)

Sen. Clinton is trying to emphasize her competence and toughness. Part of that is due to her dilemma in running as a woman, she has to be tougher than the boys. (Ahm, life is unfair.) She is trying to be all things to all people in a cycle in which that might not work and might be a disadvantage.

What does the war in Iraq mean to Sen. Clinton? She was a part of the generation that protested the Vietnam War, she cut her political teeth as a Goldwater Girl who went hard left in the '60's because of moral outrage over the war. What does the present situation mean to her? Where is the passion on this?

She can always reach back and find this type of commitment and acknowledge what actually motivates people to come out *for* causes, but I haven't seen it yet. Her views on Iraq are detached, like she only wants to approach the subject under threat. She is not 'involved,' the subject doesn't energize her, it's like it's an inconvenience to have to talk about it all.

I wonder how that is going to serve her going forward. All PRes candidates wind up revealing a bit of themselves in the course of a run, the system demands it. What is she revealing? Talking about bad contracts and bad implementation is court speak, it's not speech that involves voters. I wonder if that will change.

Sen. Clinton, why is the war bad? What does it mean to the average voter? Why are people upset about it? Is it just a matter of the wrong chess pieces being moved around on a board, is it bad policy, bad bureaucracy, or is this a gut issue that deeply challenges people at a fundamental level? What part of you is in this discussion, what part of you feels over this issue?

[wisteria]

7. I like to believe that Kerry was actually trying to do Senator Clinton

a favor in his June speech by suggesting it was time to take a real stand. Instead, he got bashed by the NYT and others who support her.

[karynnj]

4. I agree completely

Kerry clearly - in April as in June - totally changed the conversation. On a personal level, that had to be the most important thing.

[wisteria]

6. I will second your suggestion regarding burying the Rebubs. n/t