I agree that the need to resolve all differences in the Party is uncessary.  Democrats should begin the process of generating ideas that can be offered both to fellow Democrats and to the country at large.  This is what the Republicans did with such success, at least politically.  

I do think it might be helpful for Democrats to see the party's history more clearly.  Franklin Roosevelt's four terms skews people's prespective of Democratic primacy as does the control of the Congress.  The latter is misleading as it is so difficult to get rid of any incumbent regardless of party.  The Clintons were never great Liberals but middle of the roaders. One of the great spin jobs was the way Leftwing Democrats deluded themselves and the Republicans painted the Clintons.

While I appreciate your calling for the establishment to learn the issue and actually participate in the debate, I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're talking about.  The establishment is quite voluble on the issue -- do the names Clinton, Biden and Kerry ring a bell? -- and it seems to be just about united on the need to stay the course, or something along those lines.  Maybe what you mean is that those figures don't seem real interested in confronting the arguments from the other side within the Democratic Party.  Meanwhile, many thoughtful Democrats, and not just those on the angry left -- do the names Yglesias, Drum, Ackerman ring any bells? -- have paid attention to what is going on and thought about what is right, and pushed for withdrawal.

Just transcribing what Yglesias wrote this morning at Tapped.

It is worth noting too that it seems to be the establishment centrists in the policy debate who are positioning themselves through the issue, while it is the policy people who favor withdrawal who are paying attention to foreign policy rather than politics.  I mean really, what is the DLC up to if not positioning themselves through the issue at the expense of the actual policy issues at stake?  Is that what you're talking about?

As for a strongly critical position working politically, you might look at the recent special election in Ohio (and don't tell me that the fact that Hackett didn't win in that district speaks for your claim).

The worst thing Democrats (and independents) can do now is erupt in self righteos furor.  Iraq is a tough issue, for those who opposed and those who supported giving the President the authority.

Personally, I was against the war from the start.  So I am more than sympathetic to those who voiced there concerns from day 1.  But now, having intervened, I don't see how we can leave.  I am not conflicted by what will make the party or our country look more hawkish or dovish.  But I am conflicted over what is the right thing to do. 

What will happen to the Iraqi people if we leave?  What proof is there that NATO or the UN would necessarily fill the void left by our troops?

I don't profess to know the answer to these questions.  My inclination is to say this, unless we were to receive concrete commitments from the UN, NATO, and especially Germany and France (which seems highly unlikely), withdrawal will not necessarily improve the situation in Iraq.  That being said, I don't see the current administration ever admitting a mistake or taking any progessive steps, either in the training of Iraqis or in attempting to curry international support for peacekeeping efforts.

I guess the personal conundrum I face in trying to determine what is right is symptomatic of the party as a whole, but I think we can all agree with Chairman Dean's sentiments from this weekend, when he stated that it was the RESPONSIBILITY of the majority party to solve this.  And they must be held responsible for their actions and inaction.

Turning Iraq over to the UN seems a perfectly reasonable solution to this conundrum. Had this truly been a war about any of the principals that this administration has cited to justify its actions, the US government would've done that as soon after victory as possible. The American decision to stay and use the powers it gained as victor to hand out reconstruction contracts on the basis of political criteria and connections, to attempt to change the Iraqi economy into one where free market principals could open the nation's mineral wealth to foreign ownership, to construct permanent military bases, to reconstitute the Iraqi government in a form suited to the visions of the occupying forces' commanders, and so on, all indicate that there were other motives behind the invasion than the noble causes touted by this administration. It shouldn't be surprising that, for various reasons, many establishment Democratic politicians could be sympathetic to one or more of these unstated goals and, so, would willingly adopt any pretext that would allow the administration to prolong this adventure. Implicit evidence for this conclusion includes the fact that none of the major players in contemporary American politics has even suggested that our government initiate a phased withdrawal, gradually turning over all authority in Iraq to a recognized international body like the UN. And this is in spite of the fact that, in all likelihood, the deployment of a larger multi-national force under a UN mandate and control would be cheaper than the cost of keeping the current American forces and mercenaries/security contractors in the field, even if our government picked up the entire tab. Moreover, the framing of the debate as a choice between some form of 'cut and run' and 'stay the course' shows the lack of any serious intention of surrendering control of that country -- who could honestly endorse a course of action that would make the American invasion a precursor to a Bosnia-like war in the Middle East? Finally, it is at least bizarre for Democratic politicians to be concerned about alienating a group of Republican voters whom recent polls show as a pronounced minority of a minority of the electorate.
The upshot of all of this is that there seems to be a conflict of interest between some influential part of the Democratic establishment and many of the candidates who will run for offices held by Republican incumbents in the mid-term elections. Polls put the president's approval rating at historic lows and his administration's handling of its war of choice is clearly one of their party's greatest weaknesses. While keeping these issues off the table may serve sitting Democratic senators and representatives by allowing them to conceal their views of the war and the administration, hobbling all of the other candidates in the party is clearly against their interests, as well as those of the party and the electorate. I'm not advocating having every Democrat sign the anti-war, anti-Bush manifesto that I'd gladly pen. Rather, I'd suggest putting the party's money and resources into countering the Republicans' slime machine and let the candidates enjoy the same freedom Chuck Hagel does, and so speak their minds on Mr. Bush and his war. If the electorate wants anti-Bush, anti-war candidates (as I think they now do), it'll choose them.

 . . . got your number.

Feingold wants to set a "flexible target date" for when we complete our goals in Iraq. He hasn't been clear on what these goals are. Unspoken is that if we don't meet these goals, we'll have to stay longer.

Others have stated that our exit should be based on certain conditions being met. The distinction here is subtle.

If by "jump on the bandwagon" you mean let's start a real debate about what we should do, well I think that's great. It's great that the Senator from Wisconsin has stepped up to the plate. But we won't be able to do anything about it until 2008, and by then who knows what will happen?

But I'm all in favor of having an open debate. Let's get all the ideas out and discuss them!