Without reference to what the people said in exit polls and recent opinion polls, this looks like a group of people struggling with meaningful issues. The other side of the story should have been told and there were plenty of voices to seek to tell it. Furthermore, the NY Times seems to be seeking spokepeople to mouth the empty talking point about lack of funding putting troops at risk. Without authorization or funding, troop levels have to be maintained consistent with available resources. They would be put at risk by mismanagement given the significant funds already available and available for some time to come. This empty argument is put in peoples' mouths and no rejoinder is sought. It's a very slanted pro-war piece.

News report on the difficulty Democratic legislators are having determining how to implement their consensus against a troop surge in Iraq. While some want to withhold funding for a surge, others fear that could hurt troops already in the field. Well balanced report on the Democrats' dilemma.

There is something dispiriting about this rehearsal of the conventional wisdom about the Democrats internal debates on Iraq. It relies mostly on politicians public statements rather than of research or interviews and while there is nothing wrong with that, it does not provide much context for understanding the debates it describes.

A good overview of the diversity of official Democratic opposition to the Iraq war. (They all want America to lose - or at least to ensure that whatever Bush proposes, doesn't happen - they're just divided over how to bring it about. There is no hint that any prominent Democrat actually wants to seek victory.) The sources are varied and seem comprehensive; the writer does not inject himself into the story in any obvious way. Worth reading.