Yes, but how long does it take to do the necessary polling?

That's some decisive leadership!

Obama should be for it, since he proposed basically the same thing in Jan this year "troops out by March '08"

It would be a fair objection, if their declining to comment meant that they don't really know what they think, or haven't gamed the matter out.

I suspect - just a guess - that they would both prefer to vote against Feingold, and that the only reason they haven't made this public is (a) because they don't want to be seen as 'leading' the vote against Feingold and (b) they are leery of the possibility that the other camp may go against expectation and 'outflank them to the left' by supporting Feingold.

You could see the same behavior when it came to pulling out of the Fox debates; waiting, and silence, and then responding within the hour to the other camp when it decided to pull out.

Ah, Kevin.

Of course they know how they are going to vote. They are campaigning for POTUS. Wringing out the drama is part of the process.

I can't see what they have to lose by acting more boldly. What poll supports timidity at this point? Bush is going to override everything anyway, so all they have to fear is his incessant name-calling. But that's gonna happen whatever they do. Sigh.

Here's the Obama Jan 31 URL:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16896534/

Clinton and Obama can each vote for the proposal and pretend to be leaders of the Democratic Party and--I guarantee it--the majority of the country by the time the election rolls around. It would be nice if the Democrats could make it unanimous, but it would be mean and heartless to pass up an opportunity to bring the carnage to a stop.

They can argue about details and other things, but this is a chance for every Democrat to demonstrate that he or she represents the party of hope, not hopelessness. The Republicans are trying to reverse the terms, trying to prolong the death and destruction in the name of hope while disparaging those who are trying to save us all--Iraqis and Americans, including the Bush/Cheney crime family--as hopeless.

Clinton and Obama need to support every move toward peace and to do whatever they can to lead the rest of the party and the rest of the country in that direction. It will be starkly clear in 2008: Vote Democratic--our only hope for survival.

Everyuone knows this bill will not become law. It's purely symbolic, so who cares who Hillary and Obama vote?

The is the second symbolic bill they've voted on regarding Iraq. They're working on a third one -- a short-term funds authorization that also has no chance to become law.

It's OK for Congress to pass some symbolic legislation, but I think it's about time they worked with the White House to design something serious.

ex-liberal has a question: "who cares who Hillary and Obama vote?"

People who aren't ex-liberals. We're holding auditions for the next president, who won't be a Republican.

"ex-liberal" wrote: It's OK for Congress to pass some symbolic legislation, but I think it's about time they worked with the White House to design something serious.

To do that, the White House would have to be serious. Unfortunately...

Proves the point we netrooters have been trying to make about the "chosen ones"; Hillary and Obama.

These are not the candidates we're looking for.

They've thought long and hard about this stuff. Regardless of which side they're on, shouldn't they at least know which way they're going to vote by now?

It's 'maneuvering'. Even if they're utterly, 100% committed to "yes" or "no", none of them wants to come out first and then be alone and humiliated if the herd goes the other way.

Um. That red text was supposed to be italicized.

I fail at HTML tags.

Oh, and speaking of "symbolism," "ex-liberal," you neocon toad, it's perfectly okay with me if the White House vetoes the spending bills Congress sends up. The less the Republicans are able to run away from Bush's failure the better. After all, most of the victims of Bush's incompetence don't have that luxury.

Bush has ruined the GOP's decades-long branding effort on defense. Americans won't trust Republicans with national security for a generation. Suck on that, "ex-liberal."

ex-lib: It's OK for Congress to pass some symbolic legislation, but I think it's about time they worked with the White House to design something serious.

We might turn that around and say it's about time the White House worked with Congress to design something serious. They are, after all, co-equal branches of government.

So far there has been absolutely no inclination by the "CIC" to listen to the people's representatives.

OT: The gates of Hell open for Jerry Falwell...

OT: The gates of Hell open for Jerry Falwell...

This kind of pathetic dilly-dallying is making Edwards look better and better to me.

Don't speak ill of the dead.

Wimps.

It's OK for Congress to pass some symbolic legislation, but I think it's about time they worked with the White House to design something serious.

"...work with the White House to design something serious"?!? Do you ever wonder why you're the object of so much derision and scorn?

Bush has made it clear that "...work with the White House to design something serious" means just give him whatever he wants and stop asking questions.

it's kind of convenient for Edwards that he CAN'T vote on these things...who knows what he'd do if he could.

Gregory: OT: The gates of Hell open for Jerry Falwell...

Maybe this is the beginning-of-the-end of the era where the old, rich, bigotted white men get to run our world.

I shant be sitting Shiva.

OT: The gates of Hell open for Jerry Falwell...

Gosh, Falwell must have done some serious sinning to so displease God that God would make his heart explode.

Shiva is the Hindu Destroyer of Worlds. That's also our nickname for our three year old. Are you offering to babysit, Blue Girl? Thanks! We _so_ need a break.

Kevin needs to understand that focus group coordinators and superstar pollsters need time to do their job. They can't just spit out a quickie recommendation for the candidates they work for.

Via TPM, Josh Marshall, Obama to vote "Yes."

Ah, Kevin.

Will Billary and Baraka support Fiengold's stab in the back? Stay tuned.

Hey, egbreath, did you read any of the other posts today? 'Cause this kinda makes it look you didn't.

His heart exploded from doing those 2000 lb. squats.
.
.
.
Oh yeah, and the steroids.

anonymous, send that kid over - I have a 3-year-old who could use a playmate!

Osama, I think that was Rev. Robertson with the prodigious pumping. He's next, I checked.

These two are running for president. They've thought long and hard about this stuff.

The evidence supporting the first proposition is much stronger than the evidence supporting the second.

obf: These are not the candidates we're looking for.

Exactly.

mendacious hectoring rat-bastard:

Do you have a point? (Besides the one concealed by your backwards ball cap, anyway.)

Everyuone knows this bill will not become law.

Uh...no they don't, ex-liberal. Keep sending Mr. 28% bills that the majority of the US supports. If no funding gets to the troops, it's easy to see who's been stopping it...the commander guy.

Perhaps neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Obama want to get stuck in Feingold's swamp but prefer to take their own positions on the war.

Kevin Drum wrote"

"Russ Feingold's proposal to begin withdrawal from Iraq within 120 days and complete it by March 2008 (with a few minor exceptions)"
__________________________

Minor exceptions?

The allowable operations would include: "targeted operations" against al-Qaida and other terrorists; security of U.S. facilities and personnel; training and equipping of Iraqi security forces."

Unless the legislative language becomes considerably more specific, the Feingold proposal could be used to justify an increase in troop levels, rather than a decrease.