The blue-dog Dems, apparently, have forgotten the lessons of 2002. Though it does not seem like they had any interest in learning those lessons to begin with.

 In 2002, the Democrats caved to the White House on the AUMF because they thought their "bipartsianship" would inoculate them from charges of Not Being Serious About National Security while at the same time taking that issue off the table and making the elections about...ergonomics and stuff, I guess.

 It was a lunkheaded idea even then. Even if the outcome of the midterms had been only half as disastrous as it turned out for the Dems, it would have still been a lunkheaded idea. Oh, and the media really went easy on the Dems after that vote, didn't it?

Now, a certain faction of Democrats is falling into the exact same trap -- caving in on a critical Iraq vote because of paralyzing, crippling fear that David Broder might fret over their lack of bipartisanship. This despite having public opinion behind them.

Earth to blue-dogs: It didn't work in 2002. It's not going to work today.

 If the blue-dogs care about the troops, they'll support Murtha's plan. We're about to find out how much the blue-dogs care about the troops. Or if it's every bit as much a phony talking point for them as it is for the Republicans.  

Save the world. (Does that make Murtha the cheerleader, or is it Pelosi? Silar is represented by the Swift-Boat attackers going after Murtha?)

Great way to shift the framing, Chris!

The problem with the "cut off the funds" frame, is that it keys right into the right-wing mega-frame of Dems being soft on terror. The Republicans have been pretty clever with their media approach, daring if not insisting, that the Democarts put up or shut up on the issue, and trying to suck them into a PR mistake while diverting them from any real action.

It betrays their anxiety that the Democrats might actually do something, and it diverts attention from the progressive mega-frame that "Iraq was the wrong war, wrong time, wrong place, wrong enemy".

So the great thing about the frame "fund the troops, fund the withdrawal" is that it draws a new line on the sand (putting 56% of the public on our side of the line as you point out), without watering down the anti-war line.

However, further compromises with the conservatives in the Democratic Party would be counter-productive, even if it led to a line at the 67% popularity point. 2006 proved that being anti-war wins elections, and the Republicans are totally screwed in 2008 if Bush/Cheney/Republicans don't find a solution.

But, right-wing Democrats (i.e. the pro-war and pro-business wing) may also be screwed in 2008. Their support for the war has opened up a lot of space for the progressive side to run stronger candidates. If they continue to have a free pass pretending to be opposed to the war without actually doing anything, then we'd have a harder time running good candidates in the primaries.

Bush won't sign any resolution forcing him to withdraw troops into law, or will gut it via a signing statement, leading to a constitutional debate/crisis, which places Congress in the position of either conceding to Bush or impeaching him; a strategy the right wing would love to force, and which most of our elected Dems don't want to follow.  The only real power Congress has is to cut off funding, in some fashion, but our Dems don't want to "own" the funding cut off just as Bush "owns" the war.  

I think many of our Dems in Congress would lke to find a way to actually do something about the war, without forcing the constitutional showdown that many would almost prefer.  Hence, the focus on the power of the purse; Dems know that they have that power, but are, rightfully to at least some degree, concerned about the spin the MSM will put on any attempt to use that power.  

The strategy that the Dems ought to follow is to try to force the Congressional Republicans into obstructing continued war funding, by loading the continued funding with other items and terms that are so unpalatable that the Senate Republicans will filibuster it, leading to a budget impasse.  IF there is anything that the MSM hates to report on, its a budget debate.  About the only thing that they usually report on in such debates is, who's at fault for the impasse.  

I'm not saying load it up with pork, or extraneous BS.  I'm saying that continued war funding needs to be tied to fundamental security measures which have not been addressed by this administration or the previous Republican Congresses.  

Just a couple of ideas, off the top of my head, would be to include funding for port security (including the expansion of the TSA and its ability to unionize), requirements for chemical and nuclear plant security, authorization to bring civil and criminal charges against contractors for fraud, etc.  Things that the administration, and the Republicans, have fought against tooth and nail for the last four years, and which most Americans agree need to be done.  If the President, and Congressional Republicans want funds for Iraq, he and they need to address some of these other pressing issues, and begin making the hard budgetary choices that are required.  I think most Americans would support that position, and indeed embrace it enthusiastically.  It would then be up to the Congressional Republicans to obstruct it, creating a budget impasse, which the Dems can blame them for.  Then they will "own" the funding problem, not Congressional Democrats.  Either way, Congressional Dems would win; either we get some accountability with the funding, and address some much-needed security concerns, or the Republicans wind up cutting off funding for the troops as a result of their unreasonable refusal to make the hard budget choices necessary to address the greater war on terror, as opposed to just writing a blank check for Bush's Iraq war.