As I discussed earlier,  what Pelosi is proposing in the leadership text is a set of benchmarks for progress in Iraq, but without any appropriations rider to go with them. (There was one, but it's supposedly been taken out to appease the Blue Dogs.)

It's plausible (a reliable count is obviously essential - but I don't have it (surprise, surprise...)) that the Progs have enough votes to prevent the bill from passing the House.

No bill, no Iraq funding. And this is funding for the current year (ie, FY 2007).

Of course, Bush can reprogram. And, when he's reprogrammed all he's able, he can cheat.

But at least he'd be inconvenienced a tad, and the Progs would have showed a willingness to do more than introduce bills that get filed in the trash.

One problem (there are loads!) with this is that it inevitably damages Pelosi's credibility as leader, and the Dem's credibility as a party of government.

On the other hand, if the Progs don't stop the bill (temporarily), they risk capitulation to the Dogs being Pelosi's line of least resistance in future battles over legislation and policy.

Thankfully, we have some time before the Progs need to decide on the supplemental bill in which these angles can be worked on.

Perhaps some of the Progs' staffers might care to pow-wow with one or two leading lights of the lefty sphere - our own Chris, for instance - on the options and how we might help in mobilising support.

Just to be clear - I don't expect any of this to shorten the war by a day. But it's an opportunity for the Progs to rally and make their mark; and for links between them and the sphere to be made or strengthened, all with a hoped-for 111th trifecta in mind.