Reid's War on the War is Lost

The Democrat's are ready to negotiate:

Democrats are considering their next step after President Bush's
inevitable veto of their war spending proposal, including a possible short-term
funding bill that would force Congress to revisit the issue this
summer...Democratic leaders have been reluctant to discuss their next step,
focusing instead on their ability to send Bush legislation rebuking his Iraq
policy. But other lawmakers say there is no denying that Democrats do not have
the two-thirds majority needed to override Bush's veto. And soon enough,
everyone will be asking what happens next...

Cutting off funding for the
war is the "wrong message to our troops" and would fail, said Sen. Carl Levin,
chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Then "the defeat of an effort to cut
funding would be used by the president as evidence of support for his policy,"
he added.

This article tries to put a positive spin on the issue, but it's clear for now the anti-war Left have suffered a major defeat. Also, as Michael Barone points out:

We witness here a division in the Democratic party — its
politicians and its voters — that we have seen ever since military action
started to be considered in 2002. Then, most House Democrats voted against the
Iraq-war resolution, most Senate Democrats for it. The lineup today is not
necessarily the same: Levin, who voted against the war resolution, insists the
troops must be funded; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who voted for the war
resolution and said last November that of course the troops will be funded, now
says he’s for Sen. Russ Feingold’s March 2008 deadline.