Listen up, Harry!  Either you pass this with the timetable, or you can forget about '08 as a bunch of people will be siphoning off the Democratic vote with third parties.

I think Matt's right that we need to get this supplemental passed with the timetable in it, but I still think he's ignorant to expect that the US can just walk away from Iraq, 100%. I'm glad that Obama and Edwards have shied away from what he calls a 'clean withdrawal' option, since anything that allows Al-Qaida sanctuary in Anbar province and leaves the Kurds to fend for themselves can hardly be called 'clean' in my book.

I just wrote a diary on this issue, referring to the Ian Welsh diary front-paged earlier. If anyone wants to refute me, please do so there:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/27/1530 31/946

I don't know Matt, I think you're going over board a bit, especially on Edwards and Obama.  I don't see how they are not talking about a progressive stance on national security.  Edwards has been talking about restoring America's moral leadership on things like global warming, world poverty, and human rights, about renegaging the world, and restarting diplomacy, plus a withdrawal from Iraq.

What is it you are looking for?

I would highly disagree with both Matt and Phoenix Woman.  

To wit, here in the Sonoran Desert, we will be waiting for the Candidates to show up for a debate, and they will be asked, "Do you intend to issue out a public proclamation commencing with Fiscal Year 2009 Budget in which, as President, you will request only the sufficient amount of funds needed to complete a military withdrawal from Iraq within the first six months of Calendar Year 2009?"

And two points.  Who is "we" and of course, I am speaking about the Chicano Military Veterans Organization of which I am a part, and which occasionally speaks for the Privates, the Corporals, and the Sergeants.  As such, there are over 2 million men and women who have or are currently serving in our armed forces.  Add in our spouses, and our sons and daughters of voting age and we quickly reach into the number of votes approximating 7 million.

As a self-identified "aggressive" Moderate, I find that Moderates and Progressives, working in tandem, can move the 'debate' in our direction, if we are willing to aggressively challenge the Presidential Aspirants to issue forth their public statement to request only the funds neccesary to complete a withdrawal within the first six months of 2009.  Without doing so, our fate is placed in the hands of politicians, who may not have our "interests" in the forefront of their thinking.  

And sadly, the internet and the "netroots" has an attitude of "distain" toward special interest group politics, but interest group politics, is the only leverage available that will cause the Democrats to take our future into our own hands.

Otherwise, Anglos (Conservative Dems and Conservative Repubs) will continue to drag those of us who reside in the Community of "Racial and Ethnics", along for the ride and where the dead-end meets, none of us will know, and least of all, our Elected and Appointed Officials.

In any event, if the "aggressive" Moderates and Progresives cannot get one of the Presidential Aspirants to commit or pledge to our view, the Democratic Party will implode, and thus, we will be in Iraq for many years to come. And the alternative is to now begin scrambling to find a candidate or nominee that has our "interest" solely in their mind.

That's our choice for today and our choice for tomorrow.  

Like I said over on Chris's thread, the vote today, tactically important as it is, does no irreparable harm to whichever party is the loser.

In particular - as McConnell acknowledged in his statements in the last day or so - the final text of the bill will be decided by the conference (and, thus, by the Dem leaderships, pretty much).

If the withdrawal provision in the Senate text is stricken, something noxious to Bush will be put into the conference report text.

Matt has contacts in and around the Capitol and I don't; if there's a real chance that the Dems wouldn't hang tough and produce a tough conference report - tough enough for Bush to object, at least, which really isn't tough at all! - that would be truly dismal news.

I just caught the end of Hagel's speech on C-Span via dialup - so I'm not best placed to judge!

But, from what he was saying - talk about the need for a bipartisan approach, etc - I gathered he was supporting the text on withdrawal in the substitute (and therefore opposing the amendment to strike).

Hagel voted against S J Res 9, the last Senate effort on Iraq.

He could be the guy to put the Dems over the top today...

Does this check out?

And the good guys win, with a little help from Gordon Smith and Chuck Hagel.  Cochran amendment, which would have removed the timetable for withdrawal, loses 48-50.

even i'll admit they are name driven.  the clinton years look pretty great right now.

but if they are driven by her stance on iraq, then you have to consider that people aren't stupid.  or if they are stupid, you can't turn around the next day and call them smart for wanting the troops out of iraq.

they believe troops can be left in iraq to conduct strikes on real terrorists.  that you can distinguish between those terrorists and iraqis locked in a sectarian civil war.  magic bullets not required.