Even Republicans are worried that the war is going badly

Or at least those concerned about retaining their seats in Congress are:

increasingly, key Republicans do not see the same Iraq Bush sees, even if the GOP leadership remains lockstep behind the commander in chief. Over the weekend, Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said in an interview with U.S. News & World Report that "the White House is completely disconnected from reality ... The reality is that we're losing in Iraq." On Sunday, Sen. John McCain was asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether Vice President Cheney's comments last week that Iraq is in the "last throes" of the insurgency were correct. "No," McCain tersely replied.

That frank sentiment comes on the heels of a well-publicized reversal from an early outspoken supporter of the war, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., who coined the term "freedom fries" to express his outrage with France. Perhaps more than many of his colleagues, Jones faces potential electoral fallout from the war in Iraq: He has three major military bases in his distinct at the eastern end of the state, and counts tens of thousands of veterans among his constituency.

Few Republicans seem prepared to follow Jones in a call for troop withdrawal. Yet their alternative is equally problematic. If Republicans maintain their support for President Bush, they will be hard-pressed to convince voters, as support for the war nears lows of 40 percent, that the war was worth the cost in lives as well as the hundreds of billions in U.S. tax dollars. And with a stalled domestic legislative agenda added to the mix, this could all add up to electoral trouble for Republicans.

"You are looking at a political problem right now," said the chief of staff of a Republican House member on the International Relations Committee, who spoke on background in order to be candid. "Iraq is conceivably a very big problem. It's one of the top three or four issues and it's not going well; the casualties are mounting and it is costing a lot of money, and the light at the end of the tunnel isn't there."

But the problems go beyond Iraq, the advisor said. "There has been no real good news in anything the Congress has done this year, and the polls are showing dissatisfaction with the president. And Republicans are starting to worry about their reelection."

This doesn't mean all rosy news for Democrats either:

Yet Democrats vocal against the war also remain in a tenuous political position. The party is trying to walk a fine line: voicing dissent on the policy while not appearing to politically capitalize on U.S. casualties. To do this, Democrats consistently reaffirm their support for U.S. soldiers as a qualification to any criticism of the war effort.

This isn't rocket science, folks, at least outside the Beltway. The 101st Fighting Keyboarders may have been the armchair quarterbacks and the cheerleaders, but it's been progressives who have been donating money for USO care packages, sending magazines and snacks to Iraq care of Eric Alterman's regular e-mail correspondent Maj. Bob Bateman (to the point where Bateman had to say, "Enough!"), and holding bake sales so local families can buy body armor for their loved ones fighting in the war. While the war's cheerleaders are wearing their Bush Administration-issued rose-colored glasses and keeping their wallets tightly shut except to spend two bucks on a meaningless ribbon magnet, it's progressives who are writing to Congress fighting against cuts in veterans benefits and financial help for military families.

Progressives learned one lesson from Vietnam -- that caring for the soldiers who are asked to fight an illegal and unjust war is an integral part of the antiwar effort. Inside the Beltway, Democrats may be cowering in fear of Tim Russert and Tucker Carlson and the big ol' Republican meanies in the House. But out here in the reality-based community, we're showing them how it's done.