Democrats on Capitol Hill are looking pretty impotent these days. After voters in November managed to communicate with resounding clarity their dissatisfaction with the course of the Iraq war, who would have believed the majority would struggle so long to get its own message out?

Initially appalled by the president's assertion that he could conduct the war the way he wants — with or without their support — congressional leaders, through their wrangling, seem to be proving him right.

Despite bipartisan support, the Senate's response toward escalation of the Iraq war has been hamfisted. The Democrats' razor-thin majority folded under a Republican move to block debate over the non-binding Senate resolution.

The House leadership, at least, appears poised to try a more measured approach in order to send some kind of message to the White House.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the Democratic caucus is leaning toward a far more limited debate, starting Tuesday, that would center on the simple question of whether Bush should dispatch additional troops to Baghdad. Controversial decisions over war spending will have to wait, she said.

It's not much, but it's a start.

Such a vote against a troop buildup would be merely symbolic, but the power of symbols should not be dismissed.

Pelosi promises that this would only mark the beginning of the debate, trying to reassure Democrats who want a stronger stance, including an outline of troop withdrawals.

But the Pelosi strategy — which would also allow for airing an alternative GOP plan — is more promising. It's more important to get a bipartisan debate going than to set up a train wreck. So, let's start talking.