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.

"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?