There was basically zero political movement in the political battle over the war in Iraq the past two days in Congress, as lamwakers made clear the best chance for change comes with this November's elections.

For a second straight day, General David Petraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker held their ground, emphasized their basic points that Iraq is safer, that progress has occurred, but also that it is fragile in nature.

Democrats (and some GOP lawmakers) meanwhile vented their frustration with the situation in Iraq, as both parties defiantly remained in their partisan corners on the war and the possible solutions for the future.

Petraeus and Crocker "continued to offer the Administration's rosy assessment of the situation in Iraq despite reality on the ground," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

"General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker gave a very honest and clear assessment of the situation on the ground in Iraq," said Congressman John Carter (R-TX.)

I think you get the picture.

Democrats did elicit some interesting statements from both Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.  At one point, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) sternly reminded the General that on January 20, 2009, there might be a Democrat running the show at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, a Democrat who might order US forces to start withdrawing from Iraq.

Petraeus made clear he didn't support that idea, but he also ran straight to the archives for a verbal salute to the next Commander-In-Chief.

"I absolutely support the principle of civilian control of the military," Petraeus said.  "We take the orders and we follow them."

Later anti-war Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) laid out another scenario for Ambassador Crocker.

"What if the new President decides not to maintain a single soldier for a single day, and decides to close our embassy immediately. Will there be anything that ties the new President's hands, should the new President adopt a radical change in our policy?" asked Sherman at the last of four Congressional hearings in two days.

"Congressman, in a word, "No," replied Crocker.

Remember, a lot of things boil down to power.  Right now it is split in Washington, D.C., with the Dems controlling Congress and the GOP holding the White House.  So, it It shouldn't be a surprise that we remain gridlocked overall in DC on Iraq policy.

Democrats thought they were close last year to really forcing a reduction in US military troop levels, but ultimately GOP lawmakers stuck with the President after he approved the military surge in Iraq.

There were Republicans thinking hard about a change in course less than a year ago, but many of them soon realized that Democrats weren't going to be their friends even if they went for the Abandon Ship routine.

Why should they?  This is all about power.  Just because you vote with the Dems on Iraq doesn't mean they are going to save your seat come election time.

(The only time I've ever seen a blatant example of protecting a member of the other party was back in the 1980s, when the two parties coordinated on a pay raise for Members of Congress, agreeing not to help their own party's candidates who used that issue against a sitting member.

In the process, Democrats missed the best chance to unseat Newt Gingrich.  He survived and then orchestrated the Republican Revolution in 1994, which knocked Democrats out of power in the House for the first time since the Eisenhower Administration.)

Politics is for keeps.  It might not have been very apparent in the Crocker and Petraeus hearings, but that's what at stake in November.