Matt Yglesias (echoing numerous other liberal bloggers) marvels that Democrats aren't more emboldened to restrict Iraq war spending by public polls, which show widespread revulsion for the war. But the polls are saying conflicting things right now. For instance, the same poll Matt cites shows that "the majority of Americans support continuing to finance the war, as long as the Iraqi government meets specific goals," as the Times puts it. Moreover there's this, from an April 26 CBS poll:

IF BUSH VETOES FUNDING-TIMETABLE BILL, DEMOCRATS SHOULD... Fund war anyway 56% Withhold funding until Bush sets timetable 36%

And there's another point to consider: National polls matter less to individual congressmen and senators than polls in their home states and districts (not to mention to Democratic leaders who want to protect vulnerable swing district/state members and maintain their majorities). Nancy Pelosi is keenly aware of the national polls but probably just as attuned to polls in, say, freshman Dan Boren's Oklahoma district, which are surely two very different things. Finally, I'm hearing real concern from Democratic aides about the historical precedent of Bill Clinton's 1995 budget showdown with Newt Gingrich and the GOP Congress. Clinton's poll numbers then weren't quite as bad as Bush's are now, but they were pretty weak (mid/low-40s I think, though I can't find an exact number). Yet his confrontation with Congress saved his presidency. I know lots of people reject this analogy for various reasons, but it is clearly on the minds of Hill Democrats. --Michael Crowley