Senator Christopher J. Dodd, who has worked to stake a more aggressive stance on withdrawal than most of the other Democratic candidates, released a statement downplaying the significance of Mrs. Clinton's measure to deauthorize:

I support the efforts of Senators Byrd and Clinton to de-authorize the war in that we can all agree that the authorization has been de facto null and void because there were no weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein has been out of power for years.

While I applaud this effort, sadly, it will not change the President's course in Iraq. There is only one binding and responsible way to end this war.

He reiterated his support for the Feingold-Reid legislation, which would not only set a withdrawal timeline but also ultimately cut off war funds.

   $[dollar amount] is to be provided through [date] in $[smaller dollar amount] increments every [number] days to be used for the safe redeployment of our troops out of Iraq.

    $[other dollar amount] will be provided every [other number] days for diplomatic efforts to enable the democratically elected government of Iraq to enjoy the regional support that will allow the transition to an autonomous government without the need for US troops [optional wording: other than a maximum of [n] troops to be included in a United Nations peacekeeping effort].

    Prior to each funding date described above, a progress report will be provided to the US Congress by [the United Nations or other appropriate, legitimate third-party specified by Congress] verifying the accomplishments of the associated milestones set forth below.

        Whereas the failure to meet non-withdrawal milestones increases the risks to our troops by either increasing local or regional instability or by failing to reduce it,

        Therefore if in any disbursement period, any non-withdrawal milestone is unmet, funding for non-withdrawal milestones will be decreased, the funds for withdrawal will be increased by the same amount, and the milestone for the number of troops withdrawn in the subsequent period will increase accordingly. The amount by which funding will change will be determined by the Congress based on the severity of the shortfall in meeting non-withdrawal milestones.

        Also Therefore, if any withdrawal milestones is not met, all funds listed above for non-withdrawal activities will be immediately applied to ensure complete withdrawal of US troops within [1/2 or 1/4 of the time initially specified]

    [list of verifiable milestones such as:

        * specific numbers of troops brought home,
        * specific numbers of hours of electricity to a specific %age of the Iraqi population per day,
        * specific %age of Iraqi people employed in the rebuilding of the infrastructure, etc.

    Make them very, very clear, achievable, easily verified goals]

    Upon enactment of this legislation, [title of appropriate person from each branch of armed services] will provide to the US Congress a comprehensive accounting of costs for withdrawal from Iraq of each 10,000 troops and such "sensitive" equipment that may generally be deployed with that number of troops, said report to be provided no later than [date].

I liked the positive approach to his reasoning - i.e. milestones based on fulfillment of promises made to iraqis (electricity) rather than imposing our expectations (hydrocarbon legislation) on them.  And I thought the idea of bringing in a 3rd party to determine how effectively milestones were being met was a good idea, although I wonder if Iraq's neighbors might be more appropriate than the U.N.  It also brings a greater aspect of accountablility in to the picture.  

How likely is it any of our reps might actually read this and consider this idea?  Hmmm, not very, but I did think it deserved greater exposure here.

First, the quick update: I spoke to some people, and the biggest impression I got was that the leadership of our party is totally committed to our struggle. Multiple people told me both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are heart-n-soul on our side.

The immediate situation is unclear to everyone. It's a lot more complicated than the media reports are making it out; they are stuck on a "Democrats cave" or "Democrats remain stubborn" paradigm. But there's a lot more confusion and fear on the GOP side than they like to point out. I heard stories about GOP caucus meetings where some Members were pleading with their leadership to make their concerns known to the White House. The pressure is really on in this one.

The other big impression is the sheer number of moving parts to this fight. There are so many different paths being talked about and pursued; the media focus on this one aspect of it, again, misses the point. "Benchmarks" are but one facet of all the discussions going on, and even the supplemental is only one part of the big picture. There are literally dozens of different directions being talked about, all with one goal: restore some sanity to our foreign policy and get out of the middle of the civil war in Iraq. I'm based in Boston, not DC, so I'm more used to the atmosphere of the activists; I was actually surprised at how strongly people in the building feel about this, as well. If possible, many of them are even stronger in their feelings than many activists because they have to live it every day.

So, the pressure is building all over the place, and the GOP is feeling it (ignore the media's repeating of old narratives of "Democratic disunity/GOP unity"). As I said, it's a very, very fluid situation, and anything we can do to push the dynamic in our direction is great.

In either of these cases Congress must be psychologically prepared to impeach Bush forthwith should he leave the troops in place without food or bullets, which I think he might well do. On account of this it seems prudent to psychologically prep wishy-washy 'Republicans' as much as possible, since we will need them (in the Senate). They only need to be prepped enough to want to oust a man who leaves starving, defenseless troops in Iraq, waiting for Congress to blink.

There actually is some advantage in Democrats 'doing the wrong thing' at times, so they and the 'Republicans' can watch the dip in approval ratings and see how the ratings rise again when combativeness towards Bush returns. Merely pointing out that this would happen just doesn't have the same punch-to-the-gut feeling.

The entire purpose of The Federalist Papers was to gain popular support for the then-proposed Constitution. Some would call it the most significant public-relations campaign in history; it is, in fact, studied in many public relations classes as a prime example of how to conduct a successful campaign

Attribution is Oklahoma School of Law website