their arguments (excepting Sirota's) were largely based on hometeamism, support the Dem leadership rationales

Kucinich; Lee; Lewis (GA); McNulty; Michaud; Waters; Watson; Woolsey

Those Democrats who were leaning no, and who said on the House floor, that it was not the bill they wanted, did indeed vote with the Democratic bill they had, as Duncan says above.

I read what Kos had to say.  He said that the debate on the Supplemental had generated a lot of good headlines (or headlines we like to read, anyways)

At the end of the day, this is a message battle. It's a chance for Democrats to show that they are interested in ending the war and getting our troops safely home, while the other side wants to escalate the war and get our troops killed.

To that end, look at the headlines the Supplemental is generating:

•  US Democrats press deadline for Iraq pullout
  
•  Iraq pullout measures moves with war bill
  
•  US House opens debate on US withdrawal from Iraq
  
•  House Democrats seek votes for Iraq exit timetable
  
•  Dems labor for sure majority on pullout
  
•  Iraq pullout measure moves ahead
  
•  After 3 decades, Congress again tries to end a war
  
•  Dems seek votes to order pullout from Iraq

But I never read the particulars of this bill as being any of the above, and if Bush read it, or had his readers read it, there is enough in there for him to claim a vindication of his policy... the benchmarks, the timetable, and the open door to prosecute the global war on terror where and when he will...  when I spoke to someone from DemocracyRising.US I remarked that the language echoed and seemed to re-ratify the AUMF... truly a nightmare for the coming 18 months.

the pullout is an illusion, this bill does not make it real... what would have made it real is the Barbara Lee amendment which was not allowed to be brought to the floor

The Dems passed a bill based on a tacticlal, but not  guaranteed, position that Bush will veto the bill. Perhaps, they are wrong and you were right all along. In my opinion, you will be proven right in some sense, but, as politicians are want to do, all sides will present themselves as the beneficiary of their tactics and decisions somehow, rather than admit their mistakes.

I only chime in because you respond to Atrios's

I don't claim to be right about everything, but the fact that I disagree with you doesn't necessarily involve some grand conspiracy.

with,

their arguments (excepting Sirota's) were largely based on hometeamism, support the Dem leadership rationales. This is a form of cooptation. Not corruption.

which very well might be true, and I personally believe is, in fact, true. But Cooptation is a strategy not a conspiracy. In the link to the polotics of Cooptation that Edger provides the rest of the abstract reads

Improvements in upheaval technology lead to less co-optation. Increasing the relative size of Group 1 implies larger co-optation payments to a smaller group, decreasing the total resources committed to co-optation. In an extension in which Group 3 also threatens Group 1, although less destructively than does Group 2, co-optation transfers are reduced. Growth causes political stabilization. The theory applies to the origin of the welfare state, post-communist privatization and other situations.

in other words, as I see it, cooptation is nothing but politics as usual where groups are attempting to reach consensus while keeping as much of their power intact as possibile. Sometimes it requires giving up some power. Its the art of compromise. Nothing new, or nothing we haven't seen before. It might be a fine line we are slicing, but it appears you are saying that by coopting there is a conspiracy involved and Atrios and the other members of Netroots were in the midddle of it. if not conspiracy than out of ignorance there ideas have been coopted. Therefore, your opinions remain purer and theirs are less pure - not corrupted - but coopted. I think it is a matter of strategy and you strongly disagree with your netroots colleagues. However, holding steadfastly to ones principals does not make one pure in my opinion. In fact, it usually leads to bad strategy. For if convictions equals purity, there is no compromise and therefore no consensus in any social or political field.

I actually thought he was acknowledging
(and even thanking you for) your activities and beliefs while disagreeing with you on your conclusion.

so to my mind, that means more war for as long as bush feels like it. what was accomplished here? a "deadline?" not if he can sign a waiver. more money spent? i'm glad more of it will go to VA health care and armor that works, but is that on top of welfare for halliburton or in place of it? seems like the former. i was just reading somewhere that by the time we've finished the surge, troop levels will be at an all time high over there. i really, really, really, want to feel good about this, but my eyes and perception of the last six years tell me that this is going to do nothing to end the war soon.

but what has made me the most upset is all the time spent and bad feelings among us on the left this has generated. by opposing it, i have relagated myself to the "fringe" left because i "don't understand how things work." ok, perhaps i don't. but i do understand that democrats spent a lot of political capitol, that in fact congressional support is down in the public, more troops will be going over there to die, and we're three months closer to bush being able to run out the clock on this war and dump the whole thing into president hillary's lap. and she has already indicated that "protecting israel" and other war-extending concepts are a-ok with her.

Do I have that correct?