The Politico reports that some of Reid's colleagues already are uncomfortable with his increasingly belligerent defeatism


    Statements such as Reid's--while delighting those who have turned against the war--provided Republicans an opportunity to shift focus from the merits of President Bush's Iraq war strategy to the level of support from Democrats for the troops.

    "I understand what he was trying to say," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), although she acknowledged that Reid's comments had caused a political problem for Democrats. "I think it was more a problem of tone rather than of substance." . . .

    None of almost a dozen Democrats contacted by The Politico said they agreed with Reid's statement. Instead, they support what they believed was his overall theme: The war cannot be won militarily, and the president must adjust his strategy. They just wouldn't have said it as Reid did.

    "Not at this point in time," said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.). "But Harry knows a lot more than I do" about the progress of the war.

    Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said he "would have focused on the mission and transforming the strategy."

    Some launched into Clintonesque explanations.

    "I think it depends entirely on what your definition of 'lost' means. That sounded familiar, didn't it?" former senator John Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate, said to laughter on Ed Schultz's radio talk show Monday. "What I mean is, I don't think there is winning or losing in Iraq. There is certainly no military victory if it's used in that regard. The only way there can be security and peace on the ground in Iraq is for there to be a political solution."

    Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) deflected the question, saying that the war was never defined and that his 2002 vote should not have been construed as a green light to invade Iraq.


Just in case you're keeping score, Feinstein, Edwards and Harkin all voted for the war.