Okay, so is this bill going to be filibustered, and who do we have so far who are definite "no" votes in the senate.

Note to the senators:  we are watching you!

Careful Jerome. ObamaEdwards2008 tells me that pointing out how Obama hasn't lead on ending the military action in Iraq since getting to the senate by having voted for funding bills for Iraq, against time lines for withdrawal and benchmarks and for the Gregg amendment is "trollish."

;)

I was of the impression that only Bill Richardson was unequivocal in his "end the war now" stance. Did I miss something?

Yes, Obama and Clinton need to vote the right way.

I've always thought that there are two good arguments against continuing to fund the Iraq war-

#1- Military force isn't going to bring about the desired result.  It never works against these insurgencies, especially in places like Iraq with their extremely complex ethnic and religious and political dyamics.

#2- Even if the war was a great idea, we can't trust the Bush administration to carry out the war honestly and competently.

We are waiting for leadership out of Iraq and Obama waters down his best point?

I don't think that the vote on funding equalized the war issue. A certain percentage of anti-war Democrats simply would not consider caucusing for anyone who voted for the AUMF resolution. They were for Dean and Kucinich.

A larger group of anti-war Democrats simply did not consider that AUMF vote a deal-breaker. Maybe domestic policy issues were more salient for them. Maybe they recognized that Bush manipulated the timing of that vote, and the debate, in order to put Democrats in a tough spot before the 2002 elections.

Whatever the reason, a whole lot of anti-war Democrats did not agree with what Kerry and Edwards said to justify their votes for the AUMF, but were willing to look past that.

At the same time, I don't think these voters would have pretended that Kerry or Edwards took as strong an anti-war stance as Dean or Kucinich. (I know I would never have said that, nor did I ever try to use that argument in persuading people to caucus for Kerry.) So the ground was not "equalized" on Iraq.

first being relatively outspoken (2007, not 2003) that cutting funding is irresponsible and second with his strong support of benchmarks as a useful tool (see his withdrawal bill).

His out seems to be as Jerome suggested that Bush won't compromise and also that these benchmarks dont have the teeth that his own have.

The question though is whether he feels more pressure to make a strong anti-war statement and vote no or does he feel more pressure to cut off any future criticism that he cut funding for the troops. By his recent rhetoric, it would seem he would vote yes, but political realities may dictate otherwise.

Unfortunately I don't think this is a vote either he or Hillary wanted to have to make, whichever way they vote.

I disagree.  He may have no easy way out.

Obama has said that we must be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.  That was part of his justification for voting for Gregg and against Kerry-Feingold last year.  

Bush's veto should not theoretically change his position regarding funding itself, assuming he is going to be true to the principle he espoused, unless it was an exercise in expediency.

Voting against funding now will be the right vote,  but can open him up to questions about whether he was/is being opportunistic.

Based on his rhetoric, contrasted to his actions, these questions may be legitimate, a proper result from him holding himself out as superior to Clinton, Edwards and Dodd on the war issue.

Because of this diary, I just gave Obama $250.00. Thanks.

I think that he will vote to continue funding for the troops.  That would be his most consistant path. He has yet to pander to the base.  

This is a lose/lose situation for Hillary and Obama, but its a win/win for Edwards/Richardson.

to shout from the sidelines. While on the pitch he pushed for the war, even cosponsoring it. Who knows what his positions would be if he actually was in the Senate?

Perhaps/probably Edwards is honest, but he also has a big advantage of being on the outside.

Wanna bet Kerry tries to filibuster this?  I really wish he'd won in '04 :(

I think that Obama will vote "yes" and then keep pushing for a new course over the summer. Clinton will vote "yes" and then stay inactive.

The only way to stop this war is to put pressure on Republicans. GWB doesn't care about the polls, about the people, or anything. He will continue his way regardless. There will be veto after veto after veto, and Obama knows this.

I don't think that Obama's vote here is too important.  What matters more than funding is how exactly we get out of this war.

If you look at former colonies of the british empire you can see the danger in simply leaving without any thought for the Iraqis at all.

Democrats currently have the power to send legislation to Bush, I'd like to see something with a little more thought put into it than a lack of funding or timetables.  I'd like to see a plan for getting out of Iraq that is better than "we just leave".

It's so easy to be John Edwards or even Chris Dodd right now- When you're not a front runner you have nothing to lose-and Edwards doesn't even have a job-he truly has nothing to lose-We see how differently Obama responds when his vote has real consequences-not so simplistic these decisions.  Arm chair quarterbacks don't always belong in the real game.

They can't vote against it because it's terrible policy to give this failure of a "president" a blank check in the fifth year of Bush's War after the November Democratic Revolution, they have to do it because they can't "afford to let John Edwards" become the clear anti-war candidate?

That's some leadership Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton!

When you're behind and distant third in most of the country you have to stand out- that's the game- Edward's is a swell guy but that's the nature of politics- sorry -

Obama has to vote no to differentiate himself from Hillary and keep his progressive base.  Regardless of his prior comments, a yes vote here would be terrible for his candidacy.

Regarding worries about a "flip-flop," I think in the general election, Republicans are going to want to try and keep attention away from Iraq because their records are much worse.  I don't think Obama voting no here will be an issue.

I am going to take a different track here and say that I think both Obama and Hillary will vote for this bill. I hope I am wrong but this is my reasoning:

Obama needs to vote for the bill to prove that he has a consistent position as many have previously stated. Other than his pre-Senate anti-war position he has consistently funded the troops.

Hillary nullified any potential rebellion for her supporting the bill yesterday by demonstrating much needed leadership in requesting that the Pentagon brief the Senate about existing Iraq withdraw plans or explain why no such plans exist. So I think she will support the bill. However, she needs to shake things up and may very well surprise everyone.

Honestly I want all of them to oppose this bill. If it gives one candidate or the other an edge for the nomination it matters very little to me. Frankly this war should no longer be about politics. We need to take the moral high ground regardless of where the politics may fall.

The Democratic party needs to stand up, assert itself and show the citizenry what we are really made of. These meager mealy-mouthed spine challenged so-called current leaders of our party do it and our country a great disservice.

Progressive requires Progress!

Obama puts his money where his mouth is (literally).