Another good idea undoubtedly doomed to fail, but worth the effort to try:

Military Families Speak Out is challenging U.S. Senators -- starting with two named Obama and Clinton -- to filibuster and stop President Bush's request for more money for the Iraq war and occupation, another $102-billion.

Democrats aren't even talking about saying no.

The Democrats' plan appears to be to load up the bill with more domestic spending, rather than trying to stop the war spending. They want to add money for everything from storm-damaged national parks to local law enforcement grants to trying to use nuclear fusion to produce energy, CQ reports.

Instead of trying to stop the war, they've written Bush a letter, politely suggesting that he should change his strategy and plans. Right. That'll be happening any day now, no doubt.

Military Families Speak Out has a simple idea: Stop the war by refusing to fund it. That, you may recall, is how we finally got out of Vietnam.

They start by quoting Obama and Clinton, then ask them a simple question:

In Jonathan Weisman's page one, well-disguised hit piece on Barack Obama in today's Washington Post (GOP Doubts, Fears 'Post-Partisan' Obama), Weisman makes numerous references to Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold.

Writes Weisman: " ... In contrast, the American Conservative Union ranked (Obama) at 8 percent, the same figure awarded to Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), two unapologetic liberals. (italics mine)"

Why the suggestion that Feingold (and Boxer) have something for which they need be apologetic?

Was it Feingold's vote against the Iraq War? The discredited Patriot Act? The Bush tax cuts for the super-rich? Feingold's authorship of ethics reform? Feingold's fight for the Fourth Amendment?