And not always playing 13-dimensional political chess. This issue is complicated enough without trying to use it to win in 2014 (the same with jobs, the upcoming debt ceiling and budget fights, and many other things).

What does falling into his trap consist of? Denying him permission to attack, or granting him permission?

In either case, what does he do if they fall into his trap? Explain please.

He can go into any country at any time they commit an act of violence that effects us or one of our allies! the right knows this but they choose to stiff their electorate! It may not be popular but it is legal! the man is a professor of constitutional law! he's not a fool like Rubi or ryan or karl rove! I'm sure he checked out the legality before he announced his threat!
therefore he and his advisor's probably said if we go to congress and let the right think we caved in-knowing them and( the yes men-the biggest weakness in politics and business)let them run with it they will hang themselves for the 2014 election!
So now the right is holding the ball and they either have to eat crow or vote yes to save the nation from disgrace! no doubt about it ! the mood of the country will change in a second!

Republicans voting against use of military force will gain votes, Democrats voting with the president for militaryforce will lose votes. Some "trap." You think that him actually using force will make it popular? Highly doubtful.

"He can go into any country at any time they commit an act of violence that effects us or one of our allies!"

Us, yes. One of our allies, no. Read the War Powers Act. The only time he can act is "imminent threat of direct attack to the US." Not merely anything that affects us, an actual attack on us or imminent threat thereof.

"the man is a professor of constitutional law!"

What part of the constitution says he can kill an American citizen without due process of law? The fifth amendment says specifically that he shall not.

yes you certainly seem to spout the daily fox news agenda but the tide of thought is in the process of eliminating that view! you see no boots has always been Obamas claim ! troops on the ground to feed the defense industry has always been the right's agenda! I mean come on -who blew the Iraqi war? the right ! who let bin laden go in Afghanistan? the right! who has started wars since 1950? the right!
I don't believe you either read the papers or watched different news networks prior to aug. 21st. how can you not know about palin,mccain,bohener,mcconnel to name as few pushing for Obama to go into Syria! do you think everyone forgets facts?
so therefore I don't find your premise believable

Contradicting and correcting the facts you cited, which were in error.

The opinion I offered (that those voting with him for military action would lose votes) was based on fact. Poll after poll has shown that voters are overwhelmingly against the use of military force. Not one single poll has shown the slightest evidence to the contrary. Democrats who vote in favor out of loyalty to Obama will lose votes in upcoming primaries and, if the survive the primaries, will lose votes in the general elections.

And I didn't get those polls from Fox News, as you so arrogantly assume, I got them from MSNBC, among others. I also didn't say anything about boots on the ground. That is the cute little slogan that you neoliberals use to justify death and destruction by aerial warfare. I am neither a neoliberal or a warhawk.

Of course you "don't find my premise believable." It doesn't fit with what you want to happen.

sounds to me as if your forgetting who was pushing for troops on the ground!~ you see the reversal of the right is standard sop! so sell your crap to those that have no memories jim