Who's blocking real progress on Iraq?  A number of groups and individuals who might surprise you.

Steny Hoyer, who is tearfully saying Democrats will not defund the troops, thereby perpetuating a false frame that makes it hard for Congress to check Bush.  Rahm Emanuel is sticking with Steny, safe in the belief that Democrats have no responsibility to end the war, as are Chet Edwards and the Blue Dogs (who are otherwise known as the 'scared white Southern men of the party).

Harry Reid, who failed to get a vote on a non-binding resolution in the Senate, and doesn't think his original war vote was wrong.  It's Bush's fault apparently that Reid voted for the war.  Like with his stance on Alito, Reid is giving the impression of action, but not the teeth.

Chuck Schumer, who thinks he can put enough pressure on Bush to change his mind and change strategy, but is slow-walking on really challenging Bush.

Carl Levin, who has 'a little hope' we can 'turn the President in a different direction', and made the bad faith deal with Warner that the Republicans ended up filibustering.

Hillary Clinton, who argues that the war won't end until the next President takes office and so she won't take a public position that Congress should use their financial leverage to end the war.

All of these members share a common attribute - they do not believe that the public is particularly important in this debate, and they do not accept that the public's vote in the last election was to end the war in Iraq, not to play games about what the President can and can't do.  If this President won't end the war, Congress must.  If this Congress won't end the war, it needs to be voted out of office by the public for failing to do its job.

The polling is bad for cutting off funds for the troops.  The polling is good for Congressional action to end the war.  Therefore, if a member is giving a caveat that Democrats support the troops and won't end funding to the troops, they are prolonging the war.

That's where we are.  I wish our members weren't consistently behind the public in their seriousness about ending the war, but that's the deal.  And we better stop fawning over our Democratic leaders or they will never get serious about building a progressive America.

After drawing friendly fire from democrats in conservative districts (notably, Chet Edwards), the DCCC pulled their "New Direction" video. The reason?  Flag draped coffins.

Give. Me. A Break.

Now, I understand that this is a big deal in America. I understand they had to pull the ad. But why on God's green earth is it okay to let the troops stay and die (because there is no good way out of the mess we've created) but NOT to show the coffins this horrible strategy produces?

If we can't show the coffins "for political gain," how soon before we can't talk about the number of dead american soldiers? Or the war at all? Personally, I find those three things inextricably linked.

Can someone explain this American Phenomenon?

As many of you know, I'm an Army wife and mom running as the Democratic candidate for Congress against Republican incumbent John Carter in central Texas.

Recently, I was privileged to be at our local VA hospital on Valentine's Day for their annual tribute to our veterans. Carter was also invited but didn't show.  

Carter's office did send a rep who told us Carter must be real busy because he wouldn't normally miss the chance to spend the afternoon with Miss Texas who was touring the VA hospital....  It seems he missed the point.

Cindy Sheehan's arrest outside the State of the Union Address was not he first time a dead soldier's mom had been arrested at a Bush speech.

During the 2004 election, I watched as another dead soldier's mom was not only physically ejected from President Bush's re-election rally, but then arrested, handcuffed and taken to jail. It was stunning. My outrage reduced me to tears, and still does.

That is when I decided to run for Congress!