I'll be away most of the day in SoCal following up on some college move-in details with our daughter, so feel free to take the floor.
For your review and comment, and in follow-up to something Toby brought up earlier in the weekend, the Washington Post runs a good Page One today on how Democrats in competitive races are refraining from calling for an immediate pullout. The Post's Goldfarb and VandeHei are to be congratulated for pointing out that the White House is peddling a false smear that Democrats favor a "cut and run" approach. My only quibble is that they used the Pew poll to make it look like the issue of a pullout was more closely divided than it is, when in fact other recent polls have shown that 6 in 10 respondents favor withdrawing our forces within a year.
I am also not troubled by the fact that Democratic challengers in competitive or even in red states are not calling for an immediate pullout, and may even be running against the liberal wing of the party and the netroots. I have no problem with this, as the goal is not to please liberals or bloggers like me, but to win more races and get one or both houses back into Democratic hands. If it helps a red state challenger to run against bloggers or anti-war activism, so be it.
Many of you may not agree with me on this, and I admittedly waiver on how wise it was to go gunning for Joe Lieberman when the immediate goal should have been taking control of at least one house before having knock-down drag-out intraparty fights over ideological purity. But Democratic challengers need to make the case that they can do a better job representing their districts and obtain accountability from this administration than the rubber-stamp GOP incumbents they are trying to dislodge, rather than please the netroots or adhere to an agenda that won't sell in their communities.