Greg Sargent has a post describing his discouraging talk with a a liberal Dem Hill staffer.

Here's the situation in a nutshell, as best as we understand it. The White House says it simply won't accept any sort of timetable, even a waivable one. It says it won't accept any kind of benchmarks for progress in Iraq if there are any consequences for not meeting them. So aside from sending the bill back there are only two apparent possibilities left: Either the White House gives on one of these points. Or the Dem Congressional leadership caves and produces a bill with some sort of benchmarks but no accountability -- in other words, something that's effectively meaningless.

According to our Hill staffer, some liberals are beginning to fear that it will ultimately be the latter. And this has produced a kind of gloom among some libs in the House right now who are persuaded that the Dem leadership will ultimately back down in hopes that other future legislative routes will prove more fertile.

"If this is what they go with, it begs the question, Why did we go through this whole exercise with the first supplemental and everything else?" our staffer asks. "What did we really accomplish?"

...

So barring a situation where the standoff continues past Memorial Day, something Dems seem hell bent on avoiding, that leaves just options (a) and (b) above: Either the White House gives, or Dems cave. And some libs, at least, worry that it'll be (b). On the other hand, the Dem leadership insists it's committed to not giving Bush a blank check, and it has consistently hung much tougher than anyone expected and has steadily defied expectations in the process. So anything, of course, can happen.