New Virginia Senator James Webb tried an end run to stop the war in Iraq, by limiting the deployment options of the military. The idea of guaranteeing time between deployments made great sense rhetorically and it was hoped the idea of supporting the troops while stopping the war would enable them to pick off enough senators to get it done.

But it was not to be, as the WaPo reports, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now giving up on clever strategies and going back to the old strategy which did not work last spring:

Instead, Reid will again push for a firm deadline, this time June 2008, along with a stronger effort at cutting off war funding.

"It's all definite timelines," Reid said.

The Senate will resume the war debate today, and Reid invited Republicans to offer proposals. His spokesman said that several possibilities are being negotiated, although it appeared unlikely they will meet the 60-vote threshold to pass.

Looks like the GOP will have two more holes to plug in its leaky ship in '08. Larry Craig's resignation seems imminent, as pressure mounts from within his party. And now longtime Virgina senator John Warner has announced he won't be seeking reelection next year.

``I'm quietly going to step aside and clear the way for others,'' Warner, 80, said at a press conference in Charlottesville. ``I've done my best.'' ...

Replacing Warner next year will set off a heated battle as Republicans seek to overcome the Democrats' 51-49 majority control of the Senate.

Among the names already being bandied about to run for Warner's seat are former governor James Gilmore and Representative Tom Davis on the Republican side. The Dems may run former governor Mark Warner.

Virginia was a battleground in '06, with underdog Dem. Jim Webb coming from behind to beat the increasingly clueless George Allen, and now it's shaping up to be just as crucial next November.

Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), both Armed Services Committee members, debated Iraq policy on "Meet the Press" on Sunday. Webb argued for more diplomatic approaches to a complex conflict, while Graham pressed for giving the military and President Bush independence.

"You're going to have problems in Iraq whenever you leave," Webb said, adding that we "have to get strong diplomatic efforts in place in consonance with what our military is doing" and linking this "diplomatic energy" with the Iraq Study Group.

Graham countered, "The problem is trying to politicize the war. I will not vote for anything until General (David) Petraeus passes on it ... Our national security interests are also involved. If we leave now, we're going to come back with a bigger war."

What seems to be taking shape is a three-way power struggle between the president, the military, and Congress. While the debate is getting messy, perhaps divisiveness can avoid the lemming-like behavior of the Democrats who lined up behind President Bush as he called for war against Iraq in 2002.

The first amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, designed in my opinion to cripple our military, was defeated by Republicans today. However, there were seven Republican defectors, which represents the largest number of Republicans to date to attempt to damage the war effort.

By 56-41, senators refused to invoke cloture on an amendment by Jim Webb, D-Va., that sought to require specific minimum intervals between deployments of U.S. troops. The final tally was four short of the 60 votes needed. Seven Republicans voted to limit debate - Norm Coleman, Minn., Susan Collins, Maine; Chuck Hagel, Neb.; Gordon H. Smith, Ore.; Olympia J. Snowe, Maine; John E. Sununu, N.H., and John W. Warner, Va. So did all 48 Democrats present and one independent, Bernard Sanders of Vermont. Independent Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut voted "no."

The amendment text is here. This was one of the most dangerous amendments out there, cloaked in terms of "caring for the troops" (the actual subtitle of the section is "Mental Health"). While the troops are probably weary, this is no way to run a military.

To pass the cloture vote, it's not just about getting the requisite number of Republicans. There is a significant set of Democratic senators who will need to be persuaded.

Three centrists whose razor-thin election victories in November tipped control of the Senate to the Democrats now hold potentially decisive swing votes on the immigration measure the chamber will try to revive later this week.

All three Democratic freshman senators - Jim Webb (Va.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.) - voted against efforts by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to shut down debate over the measure earlier this month. The freshmen each have controversial amendments in the package that will be considered once the Senate moves to resume debate later this week. And no member is decided on how he or she will vote on the underlying bill.

I was particularly surprised by the stance of Claire McCaskill, who was recently elected back in November as well, on most issues she seemed to be a standard liberal Democrat. But on immigration, she's pretty tough.

Books and politics do not generally seem to go together. Politics is high-paced; books are decidedly low-key. Yet, nothing has become more popular for the two to be intermixed, and almost every single presidential aspirant has a recent book out or will soon. Politicians struggle with trying to balance the need for dramatic material with the risk of potential politically damaging material. One common technique is for a politician to focus on the work of others, so as to limit personal revelations, and emphasis a broad and universally acceptable theme like hard work, making a the right decision, or believing in core values. For example, take the GOP front-runner John McCain:

John McCain and his long-time administrative assistant, Mark Salter, will spend part of the Christmas holiday completing a non-fiction book, their fifth, timed for a late August 2007 release. The book's working title is "Hard Call," and it explores what Salter calls "historically significant decisions, not just political and military but from many other endeavors, like business, medicine and science.

Obama, of course, already has his book on the market. Some others include:

Well, I guess any spirit of partisanship hoped for is gone. So the first post-election interaction between Jim Webb and President Bush did not go very well, according to the Washington Post:

At a private reception held at the White House with newly elected lawmakers shortly after the election, Bush asked Webb how his son, a Marine lance corporal serving in Iraq, was doing.

Webb responded that he really wanted to see his son brought back home, said a person who heard about the exchange from Webb.

"I didn't ask you that, I asked how he's doing," Bush retorted, according to the source.

That, of course is absolute red meat to the anti-war types and I'm sure we'll be hearing them sing Webb's praises. But was it right the first time you meet the President in public to raise the issue when he'll surely have the chance to raise it in private?

The Democrats are feeling their oats, but must remember that the Senate is very tight and they will have to work closely with Bush to get anything accomplished. This is not such a good start.

And another question, did anyone ask Webb's son if he's ready to come home or like most serving over there, does he want to finish his mission?

Gentlemen:

Over the last two weekends hundreds of millions viewed your comments on Meet The Press regarding the Iraqi Study Group's forthcoming report. In both your cases, McCain, "I'd be glad to hear what the Baker proposal-commission proposal is," McCain and Webb, "And I'm looking forward to hearing what the Baker commission comes forward with, the Iraq Study Group," you hedged remarks about your position on continued U.S. occupation of Iraq based on this report.

Either the two of you are being woefully ill-served by your aides and you are not being kept up to date, or you have entered Bush's world of denial.

On AOL Election News blog THE STUMP I wrote about the report Thursday from the London Guardian which exposed the leaked content of the ISG. The group's findings were clear: "U.S. plans last big push in Iraq - Strategy document calls for extra 20,000 troops, aid for Iraqi army and regional summit"

For all of us who haven't had much sleep over the last 36 hours, AP has done us the courtesy of making a call.

And that call would be? That Jim Webb is the projected winner in Virginia. And consequently, that the Dems will control both chambers of Congress, come this January.

The current vote tally has just over 7,200 votes separating Webb from George Allen. And Allen has recount options that he is mulling. So, it's not necessarily over.

But for the moment, we'll say thanks AP and congrats Dems. And we'll see what happens next.

Now that we're seeing how close the Virginia Senate race is, it makes the allegations of dirty tricks that much more of an important issue. To recap, voters in eight Virginia counties received phone calls informing them that either their polling places had been changed, or that they were no longer eligible to vote, and would be arrested if they attempted to do so. It remains unknown just how many people were deceived by this stunt, but given the tiny margin of victory that either Jim Webb or George Allen will claim, each potential vote is sorely needed. How sickening it would be if this contest were decided by such a stunt. Let us all hope that the FBI locates the source of the calls.

As expected, AP is advising that no final calls will be made in either the Montana or Virginia races until this morning (at the earliest).

Voting machine problems in Montana have delayed final reporting. And in Virginia the winner will not be determined until absentee ballots are counted.

So, if you're waiting around, it's time to hit the hay.

And there's a little more time to make final predictions: will the Dems manage to take control on both chambers? Leave your guesses in the comments below.

Incumbent Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) stated during a 1995 interview that "if Virginia Military Institute admitted women, it wouldn't be the VMI that we've known for 154 years. You just don't treat women the way you treat fellow cadets. If you did, it would be ungentlemanly, it'd be improper."

As late as November 2000, Allen repeated his opposition to women serving in combat. The Virginian-Pilot of Norfolk reported that "Allen is insistent that women should not be involved in direct combat."

In an October 9, 2000 Washington Post article, Allen said women "should not be in foxholes," adding that the "purpose of the armed services is not to be a social experiment.".

The battle for the female vote between Allen and Jim Webb, as chronicled in the New York Times Friday, began in earnest earlier this fall.

In the latest Rasmussen poll released on 10/30, Jim Webb has pulled into a 5% point lead. The poll showed that Webb received 51% of the votes and Allen received 46%. CNN had Webb ahead by 4%. Their poll took place during the same time frame. This seems to be the first major breakout for Jim Webb.

A couple of days ago, Senator Allen brought to the attention of the Virginia voter some of the writings of Jim Webb. I thought that was pretty nice of him. The way I looked at it, even if Webb lost the election, the sales of his books would take off and he would be a bit richer. What surprised me was that the voters may have reacted in a negative way to Allen's attempt to throw mud. If Allen loses this race, he can blame himself.

I've given up on the accuracy of polls after the kerfuffles of 2000 and 2004. I think the advent of caller ID, cell phones and the new media have rendered accurate polling obsolete.

That said, some polls seem to have been more accurate than others such as Quinnipiac and Rasmussen. Zogby is wrong so often that his polling doesn't figure in anymore.

Based on the latest polling data and from what I've read of the elections, I see the five most competitve Senate races playing out this way (incumbent listed first):

Santorum-Casey

Santorum is down in just about every poll. The RCP composite has him 13% down to Casey in a state where Democrats have a strong advantage in the two big cities. Santorum has been a lightning rod for liberals and it ust may have worked. I have Casey winning this by 4% unless Santorum can get the suburban Philly in Montgomery and Bucks Counties to turn out in large numbers.

When Wolf Blitzer interviewed Lynne Cheney, he didn't go easy. To Cheney's credit, she didn't go easy on Blitzer either.

Today we've come to find out that the questions Blitzer asked were directly from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, as reported by the Prowler at the American Spectator:

Aside from using questions culled from talking points on the Jim Webb scandal provided to a CNN associate producer by the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee, Blitzer, -- without checking out the veracity of the talking points -- quizzed Cheney about the techniques used against suspected terrorists and her views on the Bush Administration. Cheney had been invited to discuss her new children's book, but came prepared to battle Blitzer, and more than held her own.