1) Is the measure popular?  I would say that the Iraq war LIMITS are popular, and gaining in popularity every day.  Thus, I believe that Dems will benefit by identifying Repukes as the delayers.

2) Publicity:  Get out there, every day, and say, "Here are the measures that the Repukes delayed today: A, B, C."  Pick the most popular.

3) What I would do, if I were Reid, is force the Repukes into delay after delay.  Find a method to bring up one measure they oppose after another.  And then cancel the August recess.

The outrage and upset with Democrats when they caved to the Republicans has had an effect.  Basically the Harry is proving to the base and population at large that they have a serious problem with Republicans who are willing to thwart the desires of the majority who want out of Iraq.  This is showing that the Democratic senators may be developing a backbone.  The Republicans used this strategy in pursuit of a position that was not worthy regardless of how they spun it.  

Getting out of Iraq is a popular measure.  The public is willing to give the Democrats some room on how to do this, but they have to be seen as doing something and if the Repubs won't co-operate they need to be seen as obstructionist. This is a win for Harry and for Democrats.  Yes some will spin it negatively, but giving in will be seen as being spineless by Democrats and Independents.  Doing something even if it doesn't work is better than doing nothing and giving in before fighting.  Our troops are dying and are not on vacation.

Good for Harry and the Democratic senators.

Harry has impressed me today. I was losing faith. Keep up the good work, Harry.

Jaysus H. Keerist!  Is Jonathan's post what political sophistication leads to?  If so, I am proud of my naivete.  If the American public is so stupid that seeing Republicans filibuster measures the American public itself wants, then we're good and fucked already, and by "we" I do not mean "us Democrats".

-- TP

I don't see any emphasis (yet) on a strategy of highlighting the Republicans use of the filibuster tactic to stop any majority-supported legislation of any consequence.

If Reid sticks to this bill and doesn't expand the discussion to include the filibuster of the Prescription Drugs, Minimum Wage, No-Confidence on Gonzales, and Troop Relief bills, than I can easily see a tit-for-tat media narrative where the efforts of both parties to filibuster in different Congress sessions are unfairly given equal standing.  Heck, as TPM and others have pointed out, the Webb Troop Relief bill wasn't covered as a failure because of a Republican filibuster, but a general failure of the Senate to get it passed.

Trent Lott has already provided an on-the-record statement that stalling is their noble strategy.  Use that and make this effort an exposure of how low the Repubs have sunk.

Good point Jonathan. I hope the Dems have a massive war room and rapid response team ready to ensure that we frame this debate as a problem of pure Republican Obstructionism on the biggest issue of the day, Iraq. Nothing less than that.

I can not believe how many liberal blogs have this wrong.

Reid is NOT filibustering.  He is threatening to hold 30 hours of debate that stretches past his bedtime into the next day.  Big fucking deal.

(Why 30 hours?  It's symbolic.  Cloture votes that pass limit debate to 30 hours.)

And what happens after those 30 hours?  Nothing.  The Democrats still have to win a cloture vote.

Blog after blog keeps talking about "filibuster" and how Reid is doing this, and Reid is doing that.  My God, our side doesn't have a clue.  It's almost enough to make one want to become a Republican. (I just can't stand siding with war criminals.)

If Reid wanted to play tough he would schedule a debate and keep the Senate in session until a cloture vote passed -- for days, if necessary.  This isn't even a slap on the wrist.  Reid has told the Republicans "catch up on your sleep because we will have a little high theater in two days.  After that, we can all go back to funding the war".

I completely support Reid's plan to force debate through the night. And I suspect that this is just the beginning of the new backbone Reid will be exhibiting. This action is much better than the proposal by some bloggers requesting that Reid force the Republicans to filibuster. Now at least the Democratic party will be able to point out over and over again what they are trying to do and what the Republicans are trying to stop.

By doing the GOP dirty work of portraying each of these votes as the Democratic failure to round up enough votes, rather than the GOP's success of obstructionism, there is no choice. I would even blatantly state why it's necessary.

Clearly, the GOP feels their best hope in 2008 is to stop up the gears and portray the Dems as incompetent and incapable of achieving any of their goals. The press was helping lay the groundwork for this narrative with cleverly slanted headlines (via TPM) in stark contrast to the ones that appeared when the situation was reversed in the past: obstructionist Democrats were now ineffective Democrats. So, we have to force a fillibuster to make it clear where the obstruction is coming from -- the press certainly won't.

As for being portrayed as theatrics -- we should be so lucky. To achieve that would mean Dems playing a clever game of hardball. It speaks to a savvy Republicans want to convince the public the Dems are incapable of. For them to be victims would mean we are the manly men, wielding power with a strong hand. It means they are weak and getting kicked around.

That plays against type in a way that will confuse DC punditry.

The important thing here is that it needs to be clear that this is an all-out campaign to get this bill passed, not just an attempt to put Republicans on the spot. It needs to be absolutely clear that it is the Republicans causing this filibuster, not the Democrats-- that the Republicans are obstructing, and the Democrats are just doing their jobs. If this whole filibuster thing is represented in the press as something the Democrats are doing (rather than something the Republicans are doing and the Democrats are working to make the Republicans back down on), it might not go so well.

Above all, if the Democrats attempt this, they need to follow through on this. Once the filibuster starts, it needs to continue until the Republicans back down, no matter how long that takes. Forcing the Republicans to filibuster for a week, then turning around and going "well, that's our limit. You won." will have no effect but to make the Republicans look strong and the Democrats look weak-- again. The Republicans have made great hay of the fact that this year, every time they've played Chicken with the Democrats, it was eventually the Democrats who blinked. This needs to stop. The Democrats have to go into this confrontation with the expectation they are going to win it, and they have to do everything to make that happen-- media barrages, constant pundit guilt trips about how the Republicans have shut down the Congress rather than let an Iraq timetable pass, targeted ads to encourage constituents of Iraq swing votes to try to influence their congresspersons to end the filibuster, everything necessary. This has to be treated like a make or break moment. If the Democrats can't win this, they will never win anything.

With that goal in mind, the Democrats' policy so far of giving up when faced with a filibuster may actually pay dividends now-- with so much of the agenda for this year already either passed or given up on after a filibuster, there is not really anything more important to blow the rest of the year on than getting this defense bill passed with the appropriate stance on Iraq.

Incidentally, Obama at one time was pushing a "just 17 more votes to end Iraq" approach to the Iraq fight, advocating pressuring Republican swing votes on Iraq bills to move over one by one until a veto-proof majority was acquired. If he was ever serious about this, the time to start working on carrying that plan out is now. There is no better first step to getting a veto-proof majority for Reid-Levin than getting a filibuster-proof majority for Reid-Levin.

When you say it will backfire on Dems. Do you SERIOUSLY MEAN THAT ENDING A WAR IT SIMULAR IN THE PUBLIC MIND TO JUDICIAL NOMINEES??

Although I do wish it had been done on the Webb bill. It is easier to show that as the R's being against the troops

This filibuster needs to happen.  Hopefully, it will force Republicans to change the way they evaluate the war and justify their continued support to their consituents.  To me, there is no justification.  Regardless of the reasons why the United States chose to invade Iraq or even why a US presence remains there today, it is clear that the Bush Administration is putting too many of its resources--OUR resources-- into remaining there.  To date, the war has cost over $340 billion dollars--money which could have been spent much more wisely and with better end results.  It is estimated, for example, that the expenditure of a mere $19 billion would eliminate starvation and malnutrition worldwide.  In a time when the current defense budget is $522 billion, the goal of eradicating world hunger is clearly well within reach.  Thus, it is clear that the occupation of Iraq needs to end, and it needs to end now without regard to what this will do to United States interest in Iraq's oil.  There are simply much more important issues that need to be addressed.  

I would start making them filibuster over Labor Day Weekend.  What would typically be a slow news weekend would have all the headlines for the weekend "Republicans delaying a vote on the Minimum Wage over Labor Day Weekend", the  Employee Free Choice Act was table the end of last month!  The symbolism is huge!