I don't want to rehash the whole thing. But your premise that Edwards/Obama should move even further to the left to have any chance is actually pretty tricky.

If they move further to the left, it will make them look even more 'unelectable' to moderate and mainstream democrats compared to Clinton. So this is a very tricky business and double-edged sword. The truth is Obama generally polls relatively well among wealthy liberals with strong anti-war sentiment. He needs to improve his standing among mainstream & moderate democrats. I just don't believe how much more anti-war rhetoric can help him.

in democratic lore after the primary...

Obama has made a lot of mistakes like letting new kind of politics be defined as not attacking your opponent

The Webb Amendment won't pass, it probably will never even come up for a vote. Hillary knows that, as does AIPAC, which killed a similar measure in the House. So her support for Webb in no way makes up for her prowar vote on Iran.

For the last two weeks I've been walking around in a state of shock and anger (not just because Congress isn't stopping the war in Iraq) but because the Democratic frontrunner appears to be getting away with casting a prowar vote in the middle of the primary.

Shouldn't this be the moment when progressives everywhere say that a Clinton nomination is unacceptable, that she cannot, must not, cast a prowar vote and get our support.

The Webb Amendment won't pass, it probably will never even come up for a vote. Hillary knows that, as does AIPAC, which killed a similar measure in the House. So her support for Webb in no way makes up for her prowar vote on Iran.

For the last two weeks I've been walking around in a state of shock and anger (not just because Congress isn't stopping the war in Iraq) but because the Democratic frontrunner appears to be getting away with casting a prowar vote in the middle of the primary.

Shouldn't this be the moment when progressives everywhere say that a Clinton nomination is unacceptable, that she cannot, must not, cast a prowar vote and get our support.

Here is video of the so-called "terse" exchange:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GInILh8j X0

"The Kyl-Lieberman amendment can not truthfully be seen as giving Bush a blank check to use military force against Iran, but it certainly makes Clinton vulnerable to the claim that she didn't learn the right lesson from her Iraq vote and she knows it"

can not truthfully be seen as a blank check to use military force...

David Mizner seems to be at odds with you, as do most Edwards supporters on here. Quite interesting indeed.

Yet how do you reconcile the fact that this is a non binding resolution? How do you reconcile the fact that almost all of the military language was stripped from the legislation? How do you reconcile the fact that the state department didnt need anything to place the Iranian revolutionary guard on the list?

In a daze indeed. Sorry Dave, but maybe when you snap out of that daze you will come back to reality

In order to criticize his opponent Obama should have a record to run on and unfortunately he doesn't so it doesn't work for him.  On the Iran vote last week Obama was strangely absent.  When all the Democratic candidates met in Iowa, Obama was didn't attend although he was in the same city.  The reason people like Hillary is because she talks about what she believes in and doesn't attack anyone else. I still don't know what Obama believes in.  But I do know he was the keynote speaker at the Hamilton Group meeting -- they are a rightwing Wallstreet group. Why was he their keynote speaker? His campaign sells us his charisma but doesn't a person have charisma because they are about something?  All I know is Obama kisses up to Republicans.  Right now in Nevada Hillary is up 37 points and Obama is running 3rd. Seems to me Nevada and the rest of the country's Democrats understand how high the stakes are and Amateurs are not going to be able to do what's needed.  

Obama talks about the Anniversary of the 5 year old vote on Iraq.  Wonder how Obama would have voted if he were in the Senate.  In light of the fact that he has voted for every appropriation which Bush has asked for since he has been in the Senate.    

I said it before, and I'll say it again; it does not matter how we read the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.  How the White House reads it, uses it, manipulates it does.  They know they aren't getting a AUMF, particularly out of the House.

At the same time, I believe the odds are 50-50 that Bush will order some kind of military strike in Iran before the 2008 general election.  He will "have" to shake up an otherwise dismal political dynamic for the Republicans, and war tends to cause the requisite shaking.  In the event of a strike, both Bush and the Republican presidential nominee will cite spurious intelligence of an imminent Iranian threat, and yes, they will try to use Kyl-Lieberman, in connection with the Patriot Act, as a tacit AUMF.  

Imagine how much easier their argument would be if the Democratic nominee supported the key resolution.  Can anyone be sure what the polls would indicate then, regarding both the presidential race and overall sentiment regarding war with Iran, particularly after the shooting starts?

Yes, it is speculation, but speculation based on the past behavior of this administation.  It is a realistic projection, and I take exception to those who argue that opposing Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination reflects a lack of realism.  Indeed, those who support her vote in favor of Kyl-Lieberman (in which there must be some military language, or sepulvedaj3 would not have used the word ALMOST) do not seem to be fully aware of the reality that we have a liar, warmonger, and megalomaniac for Commander-in-Chief until January 2009.