I found the article quite interesting. I'm still processing it to see how much I agree/disagree. One thing I really enjoyed, though, was the tone. None of the hysterical buzzwords used to attack "conservatives" I usually see in "liberal" publications seemed in eveidence and it seemed to ask in a very reasoned manner "What is best for the country from the Liberal/Democrat POV?"
Politically the democrats are in a no win situation regarding Iraq prior. If the democrats agree with the president it will be used as weapon against the party generally, creating a groundswell of republican support. If the democrats speak against Iraq, the country would not forgive them and the republicans would win again. So the democrats are taking the position of bystanders until after the election, much like Scipio Africanus did against Hannibal, they are delaying until such a time that their forces will not be at risk. They wish to avoid making any decisions prior to the election so that the important foreign policy decision will not be held against them.
While you can say that it makes the democrats political animals who have no position, only a desire for power (a position I personally feel they often hold), it does not make them unique as that animal. I think though that the democrats are exchanging a long term view for a hopeful short term political gain. Should the US be more unilateral in its action or less? Do we begin to go before the UN or not? These are questions the democrats are avoiding mostly because they do not like Bush, not because they think its in the best interests of the nation.