I think the strategy is internally direction, not externally.

My read of it is that too many Democrats (not all of them) are still afraid of being branded "weak on national defense" or "soft on terror." If another major terrorist attack happens here, they think the entire dynamic will change and the Republicans with their well-honed media machine will have it all their way again.

They are still managing risk, not opportunity. The risk assessment is:

1. If they support the "surge:"

1a. If a terrorist attack happens before 11/2008, they just fold their arms and say Bush screwed it all up, we gave him everything he wanted and what we would want if we were in place.

1b. If a terrorist attack doesn't happen they were justified.

2. If they oppose the "surge:"

2a. If a terrorist attack happens before 11/2008, they have just lost that election, because obviously they are opposed to the War On Terror(TM) and Fox News can then convince everyone to vote Republican.

2b. If a terrorist attack doesn't happen, they can just blame Bush for all the negative effects and Republican talking points will have little traction.

Stupid? Cowardly? Unprincipled? Yeah I'd say so. But real politics.

Let's see how much they say that Americans' dislike investigations once Clinton or Obama get into office. Anyone care to place any bets?

The administration will simply use the same Terrorist fear-mongering rhetoric and Democrats will respond in exactly the same way. Why would anyone think it will be any different in six months?

We would be six months closer to an election.

The spineless Democratic candidates should have six months of continuous phone calls and e-mails explaining how they will not be supported in said election if they capitulate again.

Of course I don't think that will happen, but that's what should happen. I think my district (Stark) is covered -- how about the rest of you people?

Ritter's perfidy is well-documented, Glenn. Too bad you feel the need to defend him.

Personally, I am more interested in what Ritter documented about WMD in Iraq is true or not. You, on the other hand, apparently have no interest in that whatsoever.

Is Ritter a sleazebag that should be in jail? I don't know since I am not acquainted with the facts of the case. (I would be willing to bet money that you don't know either.) Just as I am not aware of the facts of an incredibly long list of Republican "perfidy" in cases unrelated to and not relevant to what we are discussing here.

The sad fact that you can not or will not confront is that Ritter was not alone in his assertions, and he was proved right in every salient point.

I think the graphic I link to sort of captures the topic pretty well.

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/8/88/Itg.jpg

I particularly like the article topic in the lower left corner.

Hillary is just pointing out the absolute obvious: if a terrorist attack occurs the Republicans will use it to their advantage.

You might disagree about whether that will be successful, but nobody rational can assert that this won't be the dynamic. Her statements are an obvious attempt to defuse what the Republicans will obviously do in that event.

Direct attacks against GWB may sound really satisfying to those of us who already know what is going on. You need to remember that her -- and our -- political fortunes lie in not convincing Glenn Greenwald fans, but instead with those who will switch to Republican side at a moments notice.

Just a few months before she died, Molly Ivins declared that in no way she would ever support Hillary Clinton in any campaign for presidency. Ivins was totally fed up with the risk assessment low profile triangulation that has become second nature to any leading Democrat. Clinton is not unique in this, but she is the most important case.

Personally, I would love to have Clinton and Obama stand up and announce what a sham this war has been. However unlike Newt -- who is basically willing to say that -- they have a lot to lose by exposing themselves as dangerous leftist radicals who absolutely cannot be trusted on national security. Sure regular readers of Greenwald get frustrated by the apparent (or actual) lack of spine, but you and I are not the ones that she (or Obama) has to convince.

The polls look very promising, but we all know that we are "just one bomb away" (think Addington knew what he was talking about?) from Bush and the Republican party getting everything back and then some. The sad fact is those poll numbers can swing the other way overnight.

For some reason this all reminds me of how incredibly close Oliver North got to actually winning a seat in the Senate.

I didn't know there were any right wingers still around that really followed the rule of law (as opposed to just claiming to "believe" in the rule of law).

Anyway, I think the best thing to be said about this candidate is that he is not part of the "inner circle" that are pre-trained to be loyal to Bush/Cheney and nothing else. In the past any appointee in that category has not lasted, such as O'Neil or DiIlio. Or, for that matter, Ashcroft.

This many be the only non-loyalist appointment to see Bush out of office.

Why would anyone care about a MoveOn ad given everything that is happening?

Ask the Dixie Chicks.