Interesting article. I, too, have been frustrated over the Dems not pressing impeachment. It seems to me that there are more than enough reasons to do it, and I've wondered why they would risk being seen as among those giving Bush a pass and not holding his feet to the fire for the irrepairable damange he's doing to our country.

That said, I've also watched as the Senate, because of that thin majority, has struggled to pass things good for Americans, in part because of turncoat people like Joe Lieberman, who should never have been elected. Would I like to see fed-up people elect even MORE Democrats in the next election? Yes, because then there would be enough people to thoroughly thrash the Republicans out of power.

I reluctantly agree that the article has a valid point. Would it be better to  make a political calculation to spend time FINALLY conducting oversight and airing all the things the Bush administration has done, as well as passing legislation that reverses at least some of the damage (like NCLB, unconstitutional parts of the Patriot Act, etc) , or keep the public focused on going after him?

The part that is troublesome is that they might not be ending the Iraq conflict because it would help them to win the election. I can't accept that because it would mean that they too, like the Republicans, honestly had little problem with deaths and injury to the troops and also agree with Bush's regime change premises. As a group, that is-I do believe that Hillary Clinton falls into that category-I've already heard her say that she'll be leaving troops in Iraq after a war *end* and that to me smacks of supporting miliitarism. I also heard one of the California reps say the other days something on the order that she supports regime change. My own rep takes money from military suppliers and, although he doesn't represent Fort Hood anymore, votes like it.

 I like to believe that Dems also are no longer shying away from the *you don't support the troops* nonsense argument-this from the party that didn''t supply body armor and let the problems at Walter Reed happen. But again, it's an interesting premise about why not defund it now for which, while I can't embrace the more cynical view, I would like an alternate explanation.