This didn't make headlines in the major news outlets, but it's news nonetheless: John Conyers has promised to pursue impeachment after the election -- or sooner if Bush tries to invade or attack Iran. I'm not exactly satisfied with that pledge, but it's a step in the right direction (or left direction, as the case may be). His reasoning for holding back until then is that it would make impeachment the central theme of the election, potentially jack-knifing Obama's campaign.
"Dear friends, this [impeachment] is a decision I am struggling with, and I want to share it here. Do I want to jeopardize the election by taking up this issue?" Conyers asked. "The problem is, this could become the issue of the 2008 election. This brilliant, talented Senator (Obama), who has more delegates and more votes than anybody else, could get derailed."
I don't agree, but there you have it. It could certainly derail Clinton, since she was in on the security briefings and probably knows the case for war was a sham. But Obama would not be implicated. No, I believe the Democratic congress would get some respect for finally doing the right thing despite what they perceive as a politically risky move.