I'm glad you posted the votes. Curious that Chuck Schumer punted the vote. I'm really disappointed that Dick Durbin voted Yea, and am unsurprised that Rahm Emanuel did. Glad that Jan Schakowsky voted "No" -- although it's not a surprise. She rocks -- she's one of the only members of Congress who's been tirelessly critical of the mercenary army we're increasingly relying upon, demanding fiscal accountability from the assorted players, and trying to bring them into the sunshine, and she's been doing it for years. Jan rules.

As for Joe "Coach" Biden, lordy (I've always said he'd be better suited as a coach than a politician). He must've plagiarized somebody else's vote. He probably figures he's got no chance of the presidential nomination, and made a characteristically cack-handed vote.

Is it third party time yet?

Anymore, I feel like maybe we're just going to stay in Iraq indefinitely -- that perhaps the invasion of Iraq was really just a pretext for us to establish a permanent presence in the region. The excuse-go-round keeps spinning: First it was WMDs, then it was overthrowing Hussein, then it was bringing democracy to the region, now it's supporting the troops and keeping Al Qaeda occupied in the region; I'm sure more excuses will appear as required -- but I can't help but think that we're just going to stay there as long as there's oil there to be had, regardless of who is in charge, at least between the two parties.

For all we know, the surge in Iraq is really just a way of getting lots of troops massed near Iran, for the purpose of invasion or to destabilize that country.

This bit from "The Nation" says it all...

The Democratic Party leaders stand alienated from their base--while congressional Republicans, though out of step with popular sentiment, are in sync with their core supporters.

And that makes a difference. The Democrats continue to fail to play to their base, even though doing so would also be in accord with popular will, and would make them correspondingly stronger, which would translate into favorable results for 2008. Instead, they gave the GOP a gift, basically -- shoring up reactionaries and demoralizing progressives. Nice job!

This is also why the DINOs are such a liability to the Democratic Party. A built-in Fifth Column, ready to bolt and betray and side with their Republican brethren. As ever, the Democrats take their base utterly for granted, knowing that (at least for now), there's no place for them to go for representation.

If third (or more) parties are ever to come about, they need to not be so candidate-centered, but more broadly programmatic, and built for the long-term, not just an election. Both dominant parties have left enough ideological territory unclaimed for a mainstream third party to exist.

Having some competition would force both dominant parties to shape up. Americans seem to crave choice in everything except political candidates. Maybe this latest abdication of leadership will begin to change that sentiment.

Interesting piece, Mr. Conason. Christ, am I pissed off (not at you, but at the Dems)...

As for the Democrats, their leaders and strategists had nothing interesting to say about the war, largely because they were afraid that dissent would permit the Republicans to brand them as weak and unpatriotic. So they continued to say nothing.

This fear of branding is as frustrating as it is ridiculous -- it is exactly this fear which has gutted the Democrats for the last 60 years. First it was Right attacking them for being "soft on Communism" and then "soft on defense" and now "soft on terrorism."

Fear of being seen as soft on Communism paved the way for the insanity of the Vietnam War, for endless rotten Third World policy -- the Right brayed and the Democrats swayed, and slowly eroded their New Deal coalition trying to out-Cold War the Republicans, who simply can't operate without a bogeyman to threaten Our Way of Life(tm), so they try to get everybody to march to their panicked little tune.

Seems to me that instead of letting the opposition frame them, the Democrats should start standing for things of importance that have nothing to do with the latest talking points of the GOP noise machine.

Nothing the Democrats do will be okay by the GOP spinmeisters and accepted by their supporters, so why the hell do the DINOs assiduously court them? Why do some Democrats worry what the GOP will call them? Or are they just too insulated from their electorate by lobbying interests to get it?

F*ck the GOP. The GOP is the party that's out of step with the majority of Americans on every issue -- and yet they're not the ones cringing and navelgazing (they seem to prefer swagger and bluster). It's infuriating.

The GOP runs hard on national (in)security and war on terror because that's all they offer that appeals beyond their narrow base. If the Democrats were more than a shell party these days, they'd run on every issue the GOP is weak on, and they'd run hard on them. And if the Democrats won't do it, Americans will just have to find a party that will.

Americans will just have to find a party that will.

I should say "create" instead of "find," because that party isn't out there.