Considering all of the angst that's been suffered over the particulars of the House war supplemental appropriations bill, the Senate vote is quite instructive.

The Senate bill -- not a funding measure like the House bill, but a reauthorization of the use of force -- did not have as firm a redeployment timeframe.

The House bill as it is currently written (which just cleared committee and is headed to the floor) has a firm deadline for the redeployment of all combat troops by August '08, while the Senate bill only included a "goal" to redeploy by March '08.

But Republicans still prevented it from becoming law.

And now, folks like Bob Geiger can accurately write the headline, "Republicans Vote To Keep Troops In Iraq Indefinitely."

And that makes it crystal clear the fundamental differences between the parties. One has an exit strategy. The other does not plan to exit.

That's important to convey if Democrats are to articulate and build support for an alternate foreign policy, regain the public trust on national security, and win back the Oval Office so the war can end as fast as possible.

Further, Republican Senators like Norm Coleman and Susan Collins, who are up for re-election in 2008 and trying to pretend they're against the war, are now exposed as war enablers.

As said here before, the House bill as written will not become law. It will die in the Senate or the President's desk.

The details matter to the extent that Democrats should not pass a mushy bill that Bush can sign and claim it allows for continued escalation.

But the bill does not have to be picture perfect to accomplish the only thing Democrats can accomplish at this stage: make clear who wants to leave, and who wants to stay.