"It's the all-or-nothing posturing from both sides that continues to confound me."

Okay, what's the "all-or-nothing' stance that The Dems have taken? *Not* accepting the fruit basket?

Because it seems to me that a timetable that's not set in stone, that still *does* have funding now, is not "all or nothing." Considering polls show the majority of the nation favors removal of the troops *now*, not in six months, I'd say that the Dems have already conceded a point or two, and are not even close to taking an "all or nothing position."

I just don't get why some try to always equate the two extremes when, quite often, they're not the same at all.

They don't "both do it." They aren't "both bad". Not always, anyway.

Maybe I just need to stop reading Kos altogether, because between Markos and the other front-page diarists, I'm getting too skewed of a perspective. For example, today georgia10 writes "To Obama (and Clinton, Biden, and Edwards, for that matter), I ask this: how can we believe you words, your claims that you are the president who will end this war, when you refuse to take the one step that best evidences your dedication to that cause? Either you want the war to end in March 2008 (as so many of their bills claim), or you don't."

The "one step that best evidences" bit is just total crap. It suggests that anything short of that is a betrayal of the party, the country and (shudder) the Netroots. Wanting the war to end in, say, April isn't good enough? Another front-page posting annointed Bill Richardson the new Netroots darling simply because he said he'd have all the troops out by the end of this calendar year. I realize it's important, and I realize it's sensitive, but it's not a fucking race.

On the other hand, I've been impressed with Harry Reid, Pelosi, and now, Rahm Emmanuel for how they're deciding to stick to their guns. So the Democratic leadership looks like it's being firm without this "March 2008 or sooner or bust" sloganeering.