Google - One thing seems clear: Voters expect whoever wins today to do something about Iraq. What that something might be is far less clear. Congress isn't exactly in the driver's seat when it comes to Iraq, although both incumbent and newly elected lawmakers, when they convene in January, will have a strong desire to find fresh solutions to the voters' No. 1 concern -- somehow.
"It's kind of like the last question in the movie 'The Candidate' -- 'What do we do now?' " said Jack Pitney, political science professor at Claremont McKenna College.
Even if the Democrats take one or both houses of Congress, their ability to shape Iraq policy will be quite limited, experts say.
"The preponderance of American foreign policy power resides with the executive," said Peter Brookes, who served in the Bush administration as a deputy assistant secretary of defense and is now at the Heritage Foundation. "Obviously, the president is commander in chief, and he's also the chief executive who controls the State Department, the intelligence community and, as commander in chief, controls the Pentagon and the armed forces."
But Congress does have some powers at its disposal -- notably the power of the purse and the ability to launch hearings and investigations.
"If Congress did what happened in the '70s with Vietnam and starts threatening not to allow money to be used, that would be a problem for the administration," said Julian Zelizer, a congressional historian at Boston University. "The risk is it would be turned into (a perception that Congress is) not supporting the troops. But this isn't 2005 or 2004 -- there's a lot of public concern for the war out there."
Some Democrats have hinted at going after the funding. In late September, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., who would become chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee if the Democrats win the House, told the Capitol Hill newspaper the Hill, "You've got to be able to pay for the war, don't you?"
However, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who is expected to become speaker of the House if the Democrats win that chamber, has said she would not withhold money from the troops.
"In the end, Congress is not going to withdraw funding from troops in the field," for fear of committing political suicide, Pitney said.
Congress could, however, use funding in more subtle ways seeking to force a change in policy, said Stephen Zunes, a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco.
"They could place certain restrictions on the funding for the war, such as prohibiting money for permanent bases and putting more restrictions on private contractors or Iraqi government agencies using U.S. taxpayer dollars," he said.
A more powerful tool for reshaping policy may come from the hearings and investigations Democrats are expected to launch should they control either house.
"The president still has the bully pulpit on foreign policy issues," said Brookes. "But there are times when there have been significant hearings on foreign policy issues that have had a tremendous effect, not only on the American people but actually even more so overseas," notably during the Vietnam War, he said.
Some analysts suggested that hearings could focus on ideas that have been floated by foreign policy experts -- such as diplomatically engaging Iran or Syria -- two powerful neighbors who are thought to be already involved in Iraq.
Democrats have held unofficial hearings since the war began, of course, but as the minority party they were often far from the seat of power -- literally in a basement for at least one session -- as well as distant from the public eye. That changes if they win the House or Senate.
"There's a world of difference between being in the minority and being in the majority," said Pitney. "The majority controls the agenda, the majority controls what formal investigations and hearings the committee will have, the majority controls the staff."
While debates and hearings on Iraq could prove at least as partisan as ever, some analysts foresee a political environment more conducive to dialogue and compromise. Not only will the majority in both houses be small, they say, but there will also be pressure from an increasingly impatient electorate -- with the presidential election just two years away -- for demonstrable progress on the matter.
"If there was ever time to form bipartisan coalitions, this is it," said Zelizer, who said he expects the new Congress to quickly take up debate on a timetable for withdrawal.
"Especially if the Republicans lose control, they are going to be willing to figure this out because they're not going to want this to drag into 2008," he said.
"Everyone is thinking about the 2008 presidential election. ... That election will be a strong incentive for discussion in Congress to occur."
Even the White House has been dropping hints of new flexibility, according to some analysts, who point to comments from President Bush, such as his recent statement: "Don't do what you're doing if it's not working; change."
"I think he is rhetorically trying to get himself out of the hole he made with his 'stay the course,' " Zelizer said. "He's setting himself up to move in another direction."
Not all analysts are as confident.
"Yes, he has changed the rhetoric," said Marina Ottaway, a senior associate at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "But then you look at what he actually announces when he has these meetings (with military leaders and others) -- in the end, what came out were very marginal statements."
Nor have Democrats come up with a clear policy even if they do win one or both houses of Congress today, say analysts -- despite proposals floated by a number of individual Democratic leaders, including Delaware Sen. Joe Biden's notion of a "decentralized" Iraq, and Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha's demand to begin pulling out U.S. troops on the "earliest practicable date at a rate that will keep those remaining there safe on the ground."
"The Democrats have not articulated a plan. Their foreign policy and national security at this point have been what I call ABB -- anybody but Bush," Brookes said. "And it's very important that you have a plan ... other than just opposing the current government's policy."
Zunes agreed. "I'm rather dubious that they are willing to try to actually initiate a change in policy ... because of continued Republican control of the executive branch ... the Democrats' well-deserved reputation for timidity, the desire to allow the Republicans to stew in their mess through the 2008 elections, and the fact that all the policy options at this point are pretty bad anyway."
Others doubt that a new spirit of bipartisanship on Iraq will last long, if it occurs at all.
"I think the president will be a little more conciliatory than he's been in the past -- mainly because he doesn't have much choice," Pitney said. But in Congress, he added, "I know Pelosi is talking about being fair to Republicans in procedure -- that'll last about as long as the cherry blossoms."
In the end, Brookes and other analysts said, it's difficult to predict what the new Congress will do about Iraq.
"I've been in this town for a while," he said. "It's not that easy to shift the rudder on the ship of state."