Informed Speculation

I wanted to cover this yesterday, and there’s a good chance you’ve already seen it, because it was widely covered, but there was a hilarious example of the intensely navel-gazing nature of the modern Democratic Party in yesterday’s New York Times:

Democrats are heading into this year’s elections in a position weaker than they had hoped for, party leaders say, stirring concern that they are letting pass an opportunity to exploit what they see as widespread Republican vulnerabilities.

In interviews, senior Democrats said they were optimistic about significant gains in Congressional elections this fall, calling this the best political environment they have faced since President Bush took office.

But Democrats described a growing sense that they had failed to take full advantage of the troubles that have plagued Mr. Bush and his party since the middle of last year, driving down the president’s approval ratings, opening divisions among Republicans in Congress over policy and potentially putting control of the House and Senate into play in November.

Asked to describe the health of the Democratic Party, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said: “A lot worse than it should be. This has not been a very good two months.”

“We seem to be losing our voice when it comes to the basic things people worry about,” Mr. Dodd said.

Democrats said they had not yet figured out how to counter the White House’s long assault on their national security credentials. And they said their opportunities to break through to voters with a coherent message on domestic and foreign policy — should they settle on one — were restricted by the lack of an established, nationally known leader to carry their message this fall.

As a result, some Democrats said, their party could lose its chance to do to Republicans this year what the Republicans did to them in 1994: make the midterm election, normally dominated by regional and local concerns, a national referendum on the party in power.

The NSA controversy (despite the best efforts of Glenn Greenwald) is seen my many (rightly, in my view) as a political loser:

Their concern was aggravated by the image of high-profile Democrats, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, challenging the legality of Mr. Bush’s secret surveillance program this week at a time when the White House has sought to portray Democrats as weak on security.

“We’re selling our party short; you’ve got to stand for a lot more than just blasting the other side,” said Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee. “The country is wide open to hear some alternatives, but I don’t think it’s wide open to all these criticisms. I am sitting here and getting all my e-mail about the things we are supposed to say about the president’s speech, but it’s extremely light on ideas. It’s like, ‘We’re for jobs and we’re for America.’ “

Kerry, of course, makes an appearance, and, naturally, gets things completely wrong:

But among more establishment Democrats, there is concern that many of the party’s most visible leaders — among them, Howard Dean, the Democratic chairman; Senator John Kerry, the party’s 2004 presidential candidate; Mr. Kennedy; Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader; and Al Gore, who has assumed a higher profile as the party heads toward the 2008 presidential primaries — may be flawed messengers.

In this view, the most visible Democrats are vulnerable to Republican attacks portraying them as out of the mainstream on issues including security and budget-cutting.

One of the party’s most prominent members, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, has been relatively absent for much of this debate, a characteristic display of public caution that her aides say reflects her concern for keeping focused on her re-election bid. Mrs. Clinton, who has only nominal opposition, declined requests for an interview to discuss her views of the party.

Mr. Kerry said the party’s authority had been diluted because of the absence of one or two obvious leaders, though he expressed confidence that would change.

“We are fighting to find a voice under difficult circumstances, and I’m confident, over the next few months, you are going to see that happen,” Mr. Kerry said in an interview. “Our megaphone is just not as large as their megaphone, and we have a harder time getting that message out, even when people are on the same page.”

Isn’t this just an admission that Kerry failed as the Democratic leader he should have been? And more importantly, isn’t it still more of the same wishful thinking that fails to take into account that the message itself is what is missing and/or flawed?

For a perfect example, here’s Barbara Boxer:

Senator Barbara Boxer, also a California Democrat, said: “We have a strategy. First is to convince the American people that what’s happening in Washington is not working. We have achieved that. Now we have to, at this stage, convince people that we are the ones to bring positive change.”

Umm…that’s no strategy, Senator, that’s a goal. How do you get there? That’s the question…