From the Hill piece that is running on the TPM front page, but not in the blockquote:

That could set the stage for a dramatic end-of-the-year partisan showdown, which Democrats hope will help them turn voter frustration with Congress and the stalemate over Iraq into anger with the Republican Party.

This is the clearest statement of the Democratic strategy that I have seen.

The Democrats don't particularly want to end the occupation soon. In fact, as I've argued previously, I think there is a general Beltway consensus that the occupation should continue indefinitely, which I discuss at greater length here.

The Democrats want to use the Iraq occupation as the means to win greater legislative control, and the presidency. This means that they have to appear to be trying, but that they have no interest in being successful unless there is substantial republican support for ending the occupation.

Schumer said as much after the midterms--that he expected the Republicans to support force reductions by the end of the summer. When they continued to vote, as a bloc, to continue this very unpopular occupation, the Democratic response was, essentially, "Uh, 'mkay. If you want it, you got it." and then to pass legislation that left it up the Republicans to decide whether they wanted to continue to be the party of the disastrous Iraq war. So far, they are good with that, apparently.

Keep in mind that they can end the funding for the occupation with simple majorities, because funding the occupation is an affirmative act. If the House doesn't pass a bill that contains funding for the occupation, then (assuming the president follows the constitution and the law) there is no more war. The newfangled 60 vote majority in the senate, which has prevented popular legislation like an increase in the minimum wage from reaching the president's desk, doesn't apply here unless the Democrats want it to. Or if the House only passes bills with timelines, the president eventually has to sign such a bill into law, or begin the process of winding down the occupation--again, if he follows the constitution and the law (did you ever thing this would be a necessary caveat?).

So if, once again, the occupation is funded, it will be because the Dem leadership want to fund it, unless the Republicans are willing to cross the aisle and desert Bush. I think there are three reasons for this.

1) There is a consensus among Beltway insiders--legislative staff, members of the State and Defense bureaucracy, Serious Foreign Policy Experts--to remain in Iraq indefinitely. The Dems can't say so out loud, but the wiggle room that the big three candidates have left themselves speak volumes. And none of them have called for the dismantling of the permanent bases or made any substantial commitment to Iraqi sovereignty.

2) The Democrats still, irrationally, fear the "support the troops" business. I wonder, but have no idea, whether this is fear from the back bench, Hoyer/Emmanuel BS. There would be no difficulty, given the poll numbers dealing with this. And, to repeat what should be widely understood by now, the Republicans are going to run the "soft on terror" attack ads no matter how Democrats vote.

3) They want no "stab in the back" this time. A Republican president, with the unanimous support of a Republican Congress entered into this war. A Republican president, with the unanimous support of a Republican Congress, has conducted an occupation that has manifestly failed, along with other disastrous foreign policy decisions, doing so much damage that it may take decades to recover American prestige in the world. The Republican Congress has unanimously backed, in this war and in all his initiatives, a man who, for the first time in US history, is regarded during his term of office as the worst president the US has ever had.

They want to make sure that the Republicans in Congress own all of this President's policies.

The only problem they have in all this that the American people, even Democratic supporters, are less concerned with who controls the legislature after 2008 than they are with ending this disaster in Iraq. So the Democrats have to find ways to apparently try really hard to do something about, but be stymied by obstructionist Republicans. At best, that's a pretty amoral way to represent your constituents.

HOWEVER.

When we get angry at the spineless Democrats for not doing their jobs, it behooves us to remember that the Republicans are not serving their constituents either. To me,one of the most disturbing elements of the last four years or so is the complete absence of republican advocates for nation and constitution over party. Where are the Howard Bakers, the William Cohens, the Pete McCloskeys?

The Founders really expected institutional considerations to prevent what we have gone through, that Senators would not sacrifice their power and authority just to do the bidding of the executive. And yet, the Republican side of the aisle is filled with lapdogs.

I would like to conduct a thought experiment.

Suppose a woman who wanted to run for president had the following life experiences:

While in her second marriage, had a widely publicized, if not actually public, affair with a staffer.

Appointed that staffer to a patronage job when the affair was apparently over.

Conducted another affair, this one publicly--literally parading her lover, ten years younger than she, through the streets.

As a result, went through an acrimonious divorce, and was thrown out of her government lodgings.*

Moved in with a lesbian couple after being thrown out of those lodgings by a judge.

Has been not on speaking terms with her children for some time.

Does this woman stand a chance of nomination to anything?

We've been suffering through two weeks now of Clinton and gender issues, amid claims that she is raising them as a campaign tactic.

I don't think there is a clearer illustration of just how resilient is the double standard in US elections. Giuliani is the frontrunner (not talking here about the apparent irrelevance of values to "values voters") in a presidential race with a personal history that would disqualify a woman from running for Selectman in Old Saybrook.

To watch pundits parse every Clinton phrase in looking for her to take advantage of her gender, while saying nothing about Giuliani's personal life is nothing short of brazen sexism. Seeing Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson (okay, reading transcripts of Matthews and Carlson) figuratively reaching for the smelling salts, while saying nothing about the gall of that hussy Giuliani running for President is really a little beyond belief.

Reading Dowd run column after column on Clinton's behavior and, frankly, unobjectionable personal life, while not even mentioning Giuliani is really remarkable.

Really, can you think of any woman in American politics who comes close to the shameful way Giuliani has conducted his life?

-------------

(*sidebar: I guess we really don't need those lodgings, do we? Bloomberg doesn't live there either.)