Probably the best . . . .

. . . commentary on the current DC standoff is Todd Linberg's in the Washington Times.

No one has put it better than this:

Opposition to Mr. Bush's Iraq policy is now the organizing principle of the Democratic Party, much as a personal and visceral opposition to Bill Clinton became the organizing principle of the Republican Congress in the 1990s. In both cases, it verges on obsession. In both cases, many of those who are caught up in it know better. But they aren't the masters of the passion emanating from the party's grass roots; they are its servants. It will find an outlet through them.
The question will always be this: What's next? First, a non-binding House resolution. Next, an attempt to derail the surge through conditions on funding. After that, what? I don't know, but, and this is the point, there will be something.
Mr. Bush said at his news conference last week that it doesn't matter so much what he or anyone else says now; it's a question of what kind of results Gen. Petraeus can achieve on the ground. In one sense, I suppose, that's true, in that if Gen. Petraeus is unable to make a dramatic improvement in the security situation in Baghdad, Washington rhetoric will be no substitute.
But suppose, for purpose of argument, that Gen. Petraeus does get results. Suppose the surge works and Baghdad becomes and remains fairly calm. What happens then? Do Democrats rethink their opposition to the war? Do they conclude that they were wrong to oppose the surge? Do they join with the president in a renewed effort to support the political process in Iraq and speed reconstruction efforts there? Do they turn off the grass roots sentiment that swept them back to the congressional majority, telling their most vocal supporters that they need to simmer down so that the party can play a constructive role on a serious question of national security?
In two words, no way. This opposition is fully vested in its position. If Baghdad remains insecure, it's time to bring the troops home, and if Baghdad becomes more secure, it's time to bring the troops home. That's because it's time to bring the troops home. National security policy is no longer the property of the specialists in the subject in the Democratic Party; it belongs to the grassroots. The exquisitely pained position of Hillary Clinton, who made herself into one of those national security specialists, is illustrative of the current moment.

Bingo.