It's time for a new episode of the PinkerCorn show on Bloggingheads.tv. Jim Pinkerton and I discussed President Barack Obama's recent news conference and the prospects for health care reform. When Pinkerton claimed that average Americans are growing skeptical of Obama, I accused him of projecting. We also gabbed about two matters that did not come up at that press conference: the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war. Since the Afghanistan war quickly became "the other war" after George W. Bush invaded Iraq, I opined, it remains insufficiently covered by the media, even though thisis an expanding conflict. (The monthly death toll of US and NATO soldiers is up in Afghanistan.) But you can hear and watch for yourself:

 

You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter.

When director of national intelligence Dennis Blair, defending the CIA's not informing Congress of an anti-al Qaeda assassination program, told The Washington Post, "It was a judgment call" and that "we believe in erring on the side of working with the Hill as a partner," was he creating a new precedent for the intelligence community? For decades, the CIA and other intelligence agencies have often taken the less-said-the-better road when it comes to keeping Congress posted on its doings.This hasn't always been an ideological or partisan matter. Washington geezers should recall that back in the 1980s, Senator Barry Goldwater, the die-hard conservative Republican chair of the Senate intelligence committee, often decried Bill Casey, Ronald Reagan's CIA chief, for not being forthcoming with the committee.

So when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the CIA has lied to her or when it turns out that an assassination program--operational or not--has not been briefed to Congress, it really ought not to be a big surprise. There are plenty of hard-working, diligent folks at the CIA,and I imagine some might have argued that the assassination program ought to have been shared with the agency's congressional overseers. Yet institutionally, the CIA has frequently been more tight-lipped than it should have--which is, of course, a natural tendency for spies and covert operators.

And when you throw into the mix Dick Cheney, who reportedly urged that this program be kept secret from Capitol Hill, the inclination to keep legislators out of the loop probably increases by a factor of 10--or 100.

There's still a lot not known about this kill-al-Qaeda program, as Slate points out. But that Post article reports that it was dormant but about to be reactivated. Thus, it was brought to CIA director Leon Panetta's attention--but months after he had taken the job. He then quickly notified Congress that Congress had never been notified about it. And since then, the rest of us have been left to puzzle over what really went on with this project.

Which brings me to this point: it would not be too hard for a congressional intelligence committee to mount a quick probe to determine what did happen and to produce a report safe for public consumption. WIthout disclosing all the details of the program--some of which might have to remain classified--the House or Senate intelligence panel certainly could tell the public what Cheney's role was in keeping the program from Congress and examine whether the CIA violated any laws (or just good Washington manners) by doing so.

This dust-up has generated a lot of smoke this past week. The public deserves some light. Will Congress deliver?

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter.
 

It's become almost a daily ritual in the White House press briefing room. Reporters ask press secretary Robert Gibbs what President Obama will fight for regarding the health care reform bill now under construction in Congress, and Gibbs refuses to discuss details. Will Obama oppose a move to tax employee-based tax health care benefits, per his campaign position? Gibbs won't say. What does Obama want to see in a public health insurance option? Gibbs won't say.

At Wednesday's briefing, NBC's Chuck Todd tried to push Gibbs on the taxing benefits issues. Gibbs wouldn't give. Then Todd asked, when it comes to the health care bill, what is Obama "inflexible on?" Gibbs replied,

I'm on the run today. But for those of you following the Harman-AIPAC-Gonzales scandal first broken by CQ's Jeff Stein, make sure you note the latest news: House intelligence chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes has asked his committee to probe the matter.

Reyes has not revealed much about this investigation. The question is whether it will focus mostly on the wiretapping--appropriate or not--that caught Rep. Harman in a conversation with a suspected Israeli agent during which she reportedly offered to help reduce espionage-related charges for two AIPAC officials. Or will it look at whether Harman made such an offer in exchange for help in her (eventually unsuccessful) bid to become chairman of the intelligence committee? And will this inquiry examine the other side of the story: that then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales killed a preliminary FBI investigation because Harman, a Democrat, could help the Bush administration defend its warrantless wiretapping program? So much to dig into.

I've spoken to a few people on the Hill the past few days, and they all seem to zero in on the probity of the wiretap, expressing various degrees of sympathy for Harman. If this is any indication, Reyes' examination may be weighted toward protecting legislators from the NSA, rather than making public what occurred between Harman and that suspected foreign agent and exposing possible Gonzales shenanigans.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here

It sure looked (or sounded), at least for a moment, that NPR host Robert Siegel had caught embattled Rep. Jane Harman in a contradiction.

The California Democrat went on "All things Considered" on Tuesday as part of a PR offensive, in which she was reacting to CQ's story reporting she had been captured on an NSA intercept telling a suspected Israeli agent she would try to reduce the espionage-related charges for two AIPAC officials, possibly in return for help in her bid to become chair of the House intelligence committee.

Harman has called for the release of the NSA intercepts and has decried such wiretapping as a "gross" abuse--despite the fact she has been a major congressional defender of the Bush administration's warantless wiretap program. But she has not publicly said who was the other party in this particular conversation. In fact, she has said she cannot recall such a call. She told Siegel:

We don't know if there was a phone call. These are three unnamed sources, former and present national security officials, who are allegedly selectively leaking information about a phone call or phone calls that may or may not have taken place. I have to say I am outraged that I may have been wiretapped by my government in 2005 or 2006 while I was ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee.

She also said: " No. I can't recall with any specificity a conversation I may have had four years ago."

Yet later in the interview, she said, "The person I was talking to was an American citizen." Wait a minute. She cannot recall the conversation, but she knows the person was an American? Siegel is sharp, and he pounced on this:

On Wednesday morning, Senator Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, announced he has formed a bloc of centrist Democrats in the Senate who meet every two weeks, and soon after that I was asked to appear on Hardball to discuss the rise of the Blue Dogs of the US Senate. The clip is below. But here are some thoughts.

* Though Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has played down Bayh's move, it was certainly something of a disloyal action, a dissing of Reid. In announcing the formation of the group on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Bayh brayed, "We want to make sure legislation is crafted in a practical way that will actually solve people's problems." Doesn't that imply that Reid--and President Barack Obama, too--aren't trying to do that? At a time when the economy is in the middle of various economic crises and the White House is working with Democrats in the House and the Senate to develop policies, did Bayh really have to declare that he was concerned his fellow Democrats were not getting it right? Also, he could have informally convened a group of like-minded legislators for periodic gab sessions. Nothing wrong with that. But by unveiling this bloc as a bloc, he suggested he was going to lean on the White House and the Senate's Democratic leadership.

* This may have more to do with politics than policy. Bayh is up for reelection in 2010. He shouldn't have a tough reelection contest. But shoring up his middle-of-the-road credentials probably won't hurt him in the Hoosier state. Moreover, Bayh is a fellow who has considered going for the big prize--the White House. If the president's economic agenda ends up crashing and burning, Obama could be vulnerable to a Democratic primary challenge. Bayh has been positioning himself as a Democratic deficit hawk worried about government spending. (He was one of three Dems to vote against the earmarks-loaded omnibus spending bill that Obama recently signed.) And there's always 2016. He'll only be 60.

* MOR is always popular. Lots of politicians like to show off centrist credentials--whether they are or not. The Democratic Leadership Council started off as truly a bunch of more conservative Democrats. Then lots of Ds joined, and the group became less ideologically defined as it had once been. The senators who have jumped on Bayh's bandwagon include those who are indeed conservative--for Democrats--such as Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, but others might be going along mostly for the ride.

* What's a centrist these days? The political center has shifted so much this past year. Dumping the Bush tax cuts, getting out of Iraq, spending trillions on bailouts and stimulus--that's all middle-ground politics now. So what will Bayh and his Senate Blue Dogs bark about? Perhaps card check. Maybe they'll grouse about some of the spending, though they did vote for the recovery package.

* Bayh is no Mr. Excitement. It's true that political reporters relish conflict and will gobble up any soundbite from Bayh that contains a hint of a jab against Obama or the Senate Democratic leaders. But he's hardly a rousing personality who can inspire millions across the country to question the president's decisions.

Jim Hightower likes to say that all you find in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillos. To that not-so-stirring list, add Evan Bayh.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

This morning, I attended a breakfast that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held with several journalists. At the start, she noted that she had recently been in Afghanistan, and she indicated she was not encouraged by what she had seen on the ground. When the breakfast was over, I asked her about that trip. What struck her, she said, was her meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. He was, she reported, more subdued than her last meeting with him eighteen months ago. And during their talk, he had acknowledged that corruption is a major problem for his government.

That admission registered with Pelosi, for in her previous meeting with Karzai he had downplayed corruption as a concern. So one clear implication is this: if Karzai is finally admitting that corruption plagues his government, it must be really, really, really bad.

After his meeting with Pelosi, Karzai's office released a statement noting that he had received a commitment from Pelosi to help his government fight terrorism. Whatever that meant. But given Karzai's uncertain standing these days--President Barack Obama has criticized his government for being "detached"--receiving any commitment from the speaker of the US House of Representatives would be good news for him.

But not so fast.

My take on President Obama's address to Congress, first posted at motherjones.com....

An organized mind at work is a wonderful thing to watch. During his address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night, President Barack Obama placed the mind of his presidency on display, and it was wonderfully organized. The speech--a State of the Union stand-in--presented a clear, mostly left-of-center agenda for his presidency and a series of forceful rationales for his proposed actions. Obama offered all this up with a now-familiar fair dose of charm and grace. It's been years since any BMOC in Washington has presented such an extensive and well-articulated plan for--dare one say it--change.

This was a political speech, so it had the predictable elements: Americans don't give up, we'll pull together and rise again. But the strategic thrust of the speech was deftly delivered: Obama declared that the crisis--make that, crises--of the moment offers opportunities for fundamental shifts in national policies related to the economy, energy, education, and health care. In other words, the current calamity provides additional cause to proceed rapidly and ambitiously on these fronts.

Two weeks ago, the major national political narrative was congressional Republicans taking on the new president regarding a stimulus bill they decried as wasteful and ineffective. But that has shifted. The big-news story now is Republicans bickering among themselves. I was on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show on Monday night to discuss the take-the-money-or-not-debate that is weighing down (and perhaps further ruining) the Republican Party:

Meanwhile, there's more evidence of a snark-ridden riff within the GOP.

The main reason the $700 billion bailout bill failed in the House is that the Republican leaders, who were working with the Democratic leaders to pass the bill, could not count. They did not round up enough of their comrades for the bill; one hundred and thirty-three House GOPers said nyet to what some of them considered to be socialism. But the bill also failed because 95 House Dems would not go along with Hank Paulson's Billions-for-Bad-Paper plan, when alternative approaches were worth considering. (I refer to some of those options here.) And a leader of a subset of these Democrats--dubbed the Skeptics Caucus--has been Representative Brad Sherman.

Sherman attracted several dozen members to a series of meetings and briefings this past weekend, as the bill was being negotiated by others. As he left Congress after the vote on Monday, he told me that the most effective argument he made was that the bailout bill was darn weak when it came to recouping the taxpayers' $700 billion. He cited a memo he circulated among colleagues that pointed out that taxpayers were not likely to see that money--either in profits from a future selloff of the bad assets the Treasury would buy from Big Finance Firms or in a revenue bill (meaning some sort of tax on the finance industry). In other words, he challenged Paulson and his own party leaders on a fundamental of the bill: this is not a handout, but a timely investment.

What's going to happen now? The safe bet is that the D and R leaders in the House will tweak the bill or offer enough inducements to individual members (a bridge, anyone?) to win over 13 members to insure passage of the legislation. That is, there won't be a wholesale revision of the basics. So the revenue issue may remain hot. And Sherman expects to come back to Washington later this week to keep the battle going. Here's the memo he disseminated:

TAXPAYERS HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO RECOUP ANY OF THE COSTS -- Brad Sherman 9/29/08

We know that the Bailout Bill allows million-dollar-a-month salaries to executives of bailed-out firms, and it allows hundreds of billions to be used to buy toxic assets currently held by foreign investors. But we are told: "don't worry, this $700 billion bill won't cost us anything. We will get it all back next decade through a revenue bill."

I. Section 134 of the Bailout Bill merely says that the President must submit a revenue bill to Congress in 2013 that recoups from the financial industry the taxpayers' net losses.

a. If the President has any revenue ideas he actually likes, he would submit them to us anyway.
b. If the President submits revenue ideas only because he is forced to by Section 134, he will send it to us with a note saying that he believes they are bad for the country, and reserves the right to veto.
c. The Bailout Bill does not automatically enact any revenue increases, nor protect a revenue bill from filibuster or veto.

II. Congress is unlikely to pass a tax increase bill of hundreds of billions of dollars in 2013.

a. Tax increase bills are anathema to many.
b. 41 Senators can block the plan. We're giving Wall Street enough money to hire 4100 lobbyists.
c. In recent years, Wall Street has easily defeated every attempt to close every loophole that they exploit, no matter how pernicious-even the abusive use of Cayman Island tax havens by hedge fund managers, who thereby pay zero tax.

III. Any tax on the financial industry would make the good banks pay a huge tax so we can recoup what we gave to the bad banks.

a. Section 134 says the tax will be on "the financial industry." It does not provide for a tax on just those firms that received bailout payments.
b. A bank that doesn't get a bailout payment still pays the tax.
c. Community banks and perhaps credit unions will also be subject to the tax, so we can recoup what we gave to Wall Street.

IV. It is impossible to draft a tax that hits only those firms that received bailout payments, and even more impossible to draft one that taxes each bank in proportion to how much money we lost on its toxic assets.

a. There are no provisions to even keep track of losses on each asset purchased as it is managed over the years. Assets purchased from several
banks will be pooled, managed, and sold together, and we can never know how much we lost on assets purchased from any one bank.
b. If three banks in the year 2013 have the same income and size and operations, they will all pay the same tax-even if one got no bailout payments, a second got a million dollars, and a third got a billion dollars.
c. Many bailed-out firms won't exist in 2013.

1. Some will go under.
2. Some bailed-out firms are only shell companies. Example: Assume the Bank of Shanghai has $30 billion in toxic assets. It will sell these to the tiny subsidiary it has incorporated in California. The subsidiary will then sell these to the Treasury in 2009, and will be dissolved long before 2013.
3. Many bailed-out firms will still be unprofitable in 2013.
4. Some bailed-out firms will move offshore before 2013.

d. The whole purpose of the bill is to improve the balance sheets of the bailed-out firms. If particular bailed-out firms owe us the money they receive, they would have to list this as a liability, and the bill would fail to improve their balance sheets.

In 2013 we will not pass a tax bill that imposes hundreds of billions of dollars of taxes on the financial services industry, including those banks that got no bailouts, community banks, and credit unions. A tax bill imposed only on those entities that got bailout payments is impossible to draft, and contrary to the purposes of the Bill.

If it were easy to pass a bill to recoup hundreds of billions of dollars through taxes to be imposed in 2013 and thereafter, then provisions imposing such taxes would be in today's bill.

Wall Street gets their money now, and we get it back never.

The below item was posted shortly before the House voted against the $700 billion Big Finance bailout 228 to 225. Ninety-five Democrats joined 133 Republicans to bring down the bill. And Representative Brad Sherman was one of those Democrats.....

For my money, the $700 billion bailout plan is being rushed through Congress with too much haste. There's been little debate of the plan's basics and not much consideration of alternative approaches to the administration's preferred choice: buying up the bad paper of Big Finance firms that screwed up royally. Yet few in Washington--including John McCain and Barack Obama--want to go out on a limb. Any politician who stands up to Wall Street and opposes this thing has to fear being blamed should the plan not go through and the financial meltdown worsen. In politics, there's safety in numbers. So if everyone jumps aboard and this plan doesn't work out, nobody stands to lose politically. It's the safe political play: get on the train with everyone else.

But there are some legislators who are saying, slow down. House Republicans tried to put on the brakes last week. But their alternative--cut taxes--was a non sequitur. On the Democratic side, Representative Brad Sherman has pulled together a Skeptics Caucus. He drew 30 or so House Democrats to meetings on the weekend. Not enough to block the Paulson Express. But not an insignificant number. And Sherman released a memo detailing his objections to the bailout.

Since there's not much media coverage of the Slow-Down crowd, allow me--as a public service--to post the full document right here, The taxpayers need more, not less, of a debate, before allowing the Bush Administration to start a $700 billion spree.

From Rep. Sherman:

Driving to work (late) this morning, I was listening to The Diane Rehm Show on NPR (plug: I'll be on Friday morning), and I heard a comment that almost caused me to strike a pothole. The topic of the day was the financial crisis and the under-construction bailout, and Simon Johnson, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and former IMF economic counselor, commenting on the $700 billion package being thrown together on Capitol Hill, said, We're more in the realm of "chaos theory than economic theory."

Wow. And whoa. This rush to save Wall Street's backside is not only unseemly but perhaps perilous. Yesterday, Peter Orszag, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, testifed that the bailout could worsen the ongoing economic crisis. And even if the Democrats succeed in crafting a package that includes necessary provisions regarding accountability and transparency, CEO compensation, bankruptcy reform, and mortgage protection for homeowners, there are still plenty of questions about the overall approach of this bailout: the feds using taxpayer dollars to buy lousy assets from poorly-run companies to keep these poorly-run companies afloat. There are alternatives. The federal government could lend money to needy financial institutions instead of buying their crappy assets. Or it could buy better assets and pump money into the financial system that way. My Bloggingheads.tv sparring partner Jim Pinkerton advocates restructuring the entire financial sector to make sure none of its major players get too big to fail. Economist James Galbraith (a regular Mother Jones contributor) proposes pouring half a trillion dollars into the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (to preserve depositors' confidence in banks and prevent a run), putting $200 billion in reserve so the Treasury, if necessary, can buy preferred stock in banks to recapitalize these institutions, and waiting to see what happens. That is, let the folks who screwed up do what they can with their bad paper. Galbraith notes that serious economic problems will remain, but the threat of systemic collapse would be abated.

The point is that the Paulson path is not the only one. In fact, it may be the wrong one. Certainly, a few days--or a week or two--of debate and discussion before committing $700 billion would not be unwarranted. "We need more than three days to sort this out," Simon Johnson said. And he's right. The Democrats in Congress ought not be force to quick, decisive and misguided action by the we-must-act-today pronouncements from George W. Bush and others in his administration. On Thursday, John McCain said "time is short" and that a deal must be completed before the financial markets open on Monday. Barack Obama should reply: not if it's a bad deal.

Obama certainly wants to--and needs to--come across responsibly. (Who wants to be blamed for the crash of an entire sector?) But this train is probably moving too fast for the public. Slowing it down to get the response right could be a twofer: good policy and good politics.

On Monday, I noted that when General David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, testified before Congress last September he wielded a chart entitled "Iraqi Security Forces Capabilities." That graphic aid hardly backed up the argument that the Iraqi forces were on the march. It showed that the level of Iraqi troops that were fully independent or that could stage operations of their own with the support of U.S. forces had dipped slightly between September 2006 and September 2007. That indicated that over the course of a year, according to Petraeus' own numbers, there had been no progress--none--in fielding Iraqi security forces that could function on their own. That seemed a rather strong indicator.

So on Tuesday morning, as I watched Petraeus' testimony before the Senate armed services committee, I waited to get his handouts to see what had happened on this front in the past seven months. As soon as he began testifying, the committee made his charts available. And--whaddayaknow?--this time he had no version of this chart. There was one chart indicating that more Iraqi battalions were now taking the lead in military operations than in January 2007. But this point was challenged by Senator Carl Levin, the committee chairman. Levin said that he was recently informed that of 110 joint U.S.-Iraqi operations of company size or greater in Iraq in the first three months of 2008, Iraqi forces assumed the lead in only ten of these missions. Still, Petraeus testified that the Iraqi forces have "grown significantly" since September, but he did not provide information on their capabilities that would allow an observer to compare current numbers to those he presented to Congress in September. Anyone care to guess why?

During his testimony, Petraeus said what was expected: the so-called surge is working, progress is real if fragile. And he said that there should be no reduction of troops beyond a return to the pre-surge levels. At the same time, the Democratic war critics on the committee missed a chance to present a cohesive and extensive challenge to Bush's war. I suss it all out here.

Yesterday, I wondered aloud whether the members of the House and the Senate will give General David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, much of a grilling when he testifies on Capitol Hill next week. After all, during his previous appearance in September, Petraeus was met only with a fusillade of softballs.

I asked a senior Democratic House aide if the questioning this time will be more vigorous. He responds: "Absolutely. The recent events seem to have confirmed everyone's suspicions about the “success” of the surge. Combined with the recent statements about retaining 140,000 troops, the McCain 100 year commitment, and the salience of the “cost of war” theme of the last few weeks, and the 4,000 death figure being reached, Members are ready to challenge assertions or predictions of success."

Such challenging is long past due. One question is, will it matter? The Democrats in the Senate and House have been completely stymied by George W. Bush. They have tried many times to force Bush to change direction in Iraq. He has said no. And they have declined to go nuclear: that is, vote against general funding for the war. The Democrats don't have the votes to win that battle. And many of them do not want to be placed in a position where Republicans and conservatives can accuse them of being responsible for what could be a nasty ending to the war. Their strategic aim has been to force Bush to clean up his own mess. He has refused.

So it's unlikely that any tough questioning of Petraeus will lead to policy change. But this remains an important moment. For the past year, there's not been much popular and media attention paid to the war. In recent months, it's barely been in the news. Occasionally, you see video of the aftermath of a market bomb-blast, but the war is usually off the screen.

The public certainly does not support the war. But what's the nature of this opposition? Last night, I attended a screening of Body of War, a gripping documentary directed by Ellen Spiro and Phil Donahue (yes, that Phil Donahue) that follows the story and travails of Tomas Young, an Iraq war vet who was shot while on patrol and paralyzed from the waist down. After the film was shown, Young spoke to the audience and noted that even though close to 70 percent of the American public say they oppose this war, this only means that these Americans are willing to pick up a phone and tell some pollster on the other end that they don't fancy this war. That's not passionate opposition. Are they willing to take any action to stop it? Not really. Public sentiment regarding the war is closer to alienation than anger. After all, the costs of the war are hidden (that is, not felt) by most Americans,

The upcoming Petraeus testimony is an opportunity. The national media, for at least a day or so, will focus on the war. The dominant media narrative of the war in recent months has been that the surge is working. Now war critics and skeptics in Congress will have a brief chance to rewrite (or at least challenge) that script. But that will only happen if they are forceful in questioning Petraeus. Too much deference will lose the day for them. And the point is...to make a point: the war is not going as well as Bush claims. Doing so will help the Democratic presidential candidate--whoever wins--do battle with John McCain, a cheerleader for the war, and also help the Democratic nominee, if he or she is elected, to begin disengagement from Iraq.

It may be weeks or months before the American public (and the media) next pays any intense attention to the war. The Democrats ought to make sure they don't blow this engagement.

"In a setback for the Democrats...." "In a setback for the Democrats...." "In a setback for the Democrats...." Seems every time you turn on the telly or pick up a paper--or even read on the Internet--these words dominate coverage of the goings-on in Washington. The Dems try to tax Big Oil to pay for alternative energy programs. They lose. The Dems try to tax gazillionaire hedge funds hotshots so upper middle-class taxpayers don't get nailed by the Alternative Minimum Tax. They lose. The Dems try to expand the children's health insurance program. They lose. And of course, the Dems try to attach timetables and limits to the new funding for the war in Iraq. They lose. Given that most of these positions are supported by most Americans, one might wonder why the Democrats keep failing. But George W. Bush keeps outmaneuvering Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It's looking like the Ds are the Putz Party.

Yeah, I know the Democratic argument: we face those obstructionist, filibuster-waving GOPers who march in lockstep with Mr. Obstinate in the White House and, still, we've raised the minimum wage, passed the 9/11 commission recommendations, boosted fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, and reprogrammed billions that Bush wanted toward our budget priorities. But there is the matter of the war.

Once again, the headline in this morning's papers: Senate Approves Iraq War Funds. On the No. 1 issue of this Congress, the Democrats have utterly failed. They triumphantly came into office pledging to end the war, and they have not even managed to slow it down. The Democratic base is right to be peeved. And the Dems cannot blame the media for noting this continuing failure. On this point--the key point--they look hapless and impotent. Sure, there are structural impediments, such as that Senate filibuster and the presidential veto. But the Democrats have not figured out how to lose successfully. If you don't have the votes, you don't have the votes. Math is math. But there are ways to frame debates so that you win (somewhat) by losing. And on Iraq--and the other matters listed above--the Ds haven't done that.

Perhaps it's easier said than done. The Monday morning quarterback always has 20-20 vision. But the Democrats missed a chance early on to have a simple up-and-down vote on war funding that would have established that Bush and the Republicans (with a few Democrats) were keeping the war alive despite the Democrats' best efforts. Which would mean that the Democrats needed more Democrats in Congress. But the various pirouettes and legislative mechanisms the Democrats have tried have been confusing and, worse, ineffective. And their messaging has been inconsistent: we're standing firm....oh, no, we're not....now this time we really will....well, we don't have the votes...and so on.

Fair or not, the Democrats cannot hide their war failure behind press releases touting their successes on other fronts. A House Democratic chief of staff explains: "It's like you call in a contractor to fix your roof, he doesn't do it, but he tells you, 'now you're sink is working fine.' Okay, but you wanted to him to fix the roof and he promised to fix the roof and he didn't." The roof is the Iraq war.

Being in the majority can be rough. There are expectations and obligations. In 1994, after the Democrats lost Congress, Representative Barney Frank told me he was looking forward to being in the minority: "It's more fun." Would Pelosi and Reid agree now? In any event, after Congress clears out of town, these leaders and the rest of the Dems ought to start thinking how to have a better year in 2008. You think they know there are elections next November?