Democrats attack their own before Republicans can so they won't look weak.

Ok, those are not exactly the words of E. J. Dionne at Working for Change today...but pretty close.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20057

"The neat summary of the new Republican home-front offensive was the tag line on a Republican National Committee ad: “Our country is at war. Our soldiers are watching and our enemies are too. Message to Democrats: Retreat and Defeat is not an option.” Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert helpfully explained: “The Democratic Party sides with those who wish to surrender.”

Attacks on Democrats of this sort are effective because Democrats help make them so. Democrats are so obsessed with not looking “weak” on defense that they end up making themselves look weak, period, by the way they respond to Republican attacks on their alleged weakness. Oh my gosh, many Democrats say, we can't associate ourselves with the likes of Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader who recently called for a troop withdrawal within six months. Let's knife them before Karl Rove gets around to knifing us. Talk about a recipe for retreat and defeat.

But the Democrats' problem is not just one of political tactics. It's also rooted in a simple reality: Democrats in both houses of Congress have been divided on this war from the very beginning. House Democrats are, on the whole, more dovish than Senate Democrats. And the party's rank and file are, on the whole, more dovish than its congressional wing.

In any event, why shouldn't Democrats be divided on the war? So is the rest of the country. And so are Republicans."

..."What's gone largely unnoticed is that while Democrats show their divisions on the war in Congress, Republicans are more divided at the grass roots. In the most recent New York Times/CBS News Poll, 76 percent of Democrats favored reducing our commitment to Iraq — 40 percent for pulling all the troops out, 36 percent for decreasing their numbers — while 13 percent favored keeping current troop levels, and 6 percent preferred increasing their ranks. Among Republicans, 16 percent favored increasing our troop levels while 37 percent would keep them constant. On the other side, 41 percent supported decreasing our commitment, including the 10 percent who were for full withdrawal."

...that in order to look 'strong', they need to cave-in to the opposition party?

Oh, I know -- those Potemkin consultants (that have been losing elections for the last 14+ years) said so...

When they started talking about the Democrats dividing, it smelled like a pathetic attempt to get the attention off all the Republican corruption, investigations, legal problems, falling poll numbers, loss of support for the war, etc. and make a huge deal out of the fact that Democrats are walking in the exact same pattern and speed. Look at the alleged crimes Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi are accused of (pointing out the obvious flaws in Bush's stay the course plan), and then look at how many dead soldiers and Iraqis there are because of this administration failing to even deal with the situation. Why do we continue to allow the press to divert our attentions to the non-issues?

"why shouldn't Democrats be divided on the war? So is the rest of the country."
How telling that you had to invent a quote by Dionne to make your point.