I have a lot of issues with this essay, especially how it generalizes the entire Democratic party by citing isolated cases. However, the author makes some good points on the general cluelessness about Americans' attitudes on the part of representatives like Rahm Emmanuel and how the Democratic Party is divided on the issue that landed them the majority after the election.
Sometimes it's great to be wrong. When the Democrats took the House and the Senate-contrary to my published expectations-I breathed a sigh of relief. So what if James Webb is a pulp-fiction-writing former Reaganite. The senator-elect from Virginia and his Democratic colleagues have pledged renewed scrutiny of the Iraq catastrophe, and that's reason enough to celebrate.
Then again, was my pessimism so misguided? I wanted the Democrats to win so they might get us out of Iraq, but I thought that they would fall short because of their steadfast refusal to condemn the war with a unified voice. Too often during the campaign, I couldn't tell the difference between the Democratic and the Republican positions on Iraq.
[..]To analyze this paradox it's necessary to consider the work of Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D.-Ill.), the hatchetman for Bill and Hillary Clinton and boss of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Emanuel labored hard to keep strongly anti-war candidates off the Democratic line and slate Iraq equivocators instead. Read full article here