Thanks for the update.  I ragged on you a little bit about Sestak, but the presure you put on wavering Democrats is a very good thing.  Hopefully, with a bit more nudging, we can actually end the damn war.

Now that the bill is branded as an antiwar bill

imo, that is NOT truth in advertising. bleh.

Sestak's appearance on Meet the Press was a command performance and an example of how to maintain composure and focus in the face of ad hominem attacks.  He came across as a man of reason, who has been informed by experience.

Perle and DeLay were savaging throughout and he never took the bait, preferring instead to make substantive point after substantive point.

My straw poll of two (my mother and my wife) were both impressed by him, saying he gave them a sense of hope about the days ahead.

The progressive movement marginalizes him at its peril.  He comes across as a powerful, persuasive communicator.  

When people like Sestak and Clark speak on these issues, people listen.  We need as many of them on our side as we can get.

Like I said, there are people out there who deserve the benefit of the doubt.  Admiral Sestak is one.

I realize that, as liberals, we're not really about putting our blind trust in anyone.  That's probably for the best.  But it's still alarming how we're constantly ready to throw everyone and anyone to the wolves, regardless of their track record, if we perceive that they've gotten out of step with us for a moment.

If we keep this up, we'll end up with leaders like this one.

Joe's a good guy.

I was confused by this whole thread. I never understood why you got on this trip, Matt. You can't expect 100% message discipline, but there are few people with such consistent, laser-like focus on ending the war as Sestak. If you're larger concern was making sure that Dems were helping to establish "the anti-war brand," then it never made sense to me that you were getting on your horse about Sestak.

He also has been a big supporter of the netroots, and he doesn't say strange things about those freaky bloggers. You turn on guys like this at your peril.

We should be showing other candidates and officials all of the benefits of building strong ties to the netroots. Instead we came dangerously close to sending the message that the bloggers turn on their own.

The House Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing today on the House's proposed Iraq legislation.

http://www.fednews.com/transcript.htm?id =20070320t2581

Sestak was one of the witnesses listed.  I dont't have access to the transcript yet, ut you can be sure that the Dems would not have lised him as a witness if he were not supporting the Bill.

I appreciate your rethinking this, and posting this update. As time goes by, I'm sure you'll find that Sestak is consistently one of our better representatives, and deserves our support.

Pelosi's Pincers have worked on the Dogs by removing every last fang from the bill - though Bush will disagree, natch! - and on the Progs by rubber-hose sessions, and latterly, reassurances from MoveOn that they know the whole thing is kabuki, and won't hold a vote for the bill as a black mark in their liberal credentials.

Will MoveOn get their reward in heaven - or somewhat earlier? Are their supporters fully initiated into the game that's being played? Will they come to regret steaming in to Nancy's rescue in the nick of time?

Well-done Matt.  I appreciate you taking the time to set the record straight.  

Good call Matt.

Thanks for posting this. We've all been guilty of losing perspective from time to time, especially on truly important issues like these on which there can be few if any clear-cut, black-vs-white positions.

I'm pretty passionate about issues myself, but over the long decades of being an activist about them I have learned to appreciate the necessity of nuance. (Yeah, I know -- I may be an old-school bleeding-heart left-wing liberal, but I'm a pragmatic one in my old age.)

The real world is inevitably a give-and-take place, really, and nowhere is this more true than in the concentrated, complicated world of Washington politics. I don't envy those who are tasked with having to push a given point of policy through to its final form as a passable piece of legislation without letting it get disemboweled along the way.

Which is why it's always worthwhile for us to do what needs to be done to keep the good guys honest, but it's important to focus our primary efforts on dinking the bad ones and helping the ones in the middle see the error of their ways.