Look. I know these people are supposed to be professionals, but the Democratic Message "Machine" seemed pretty damn broken last week. Let me count the ways:
Exhibit A
John McCain loudly accuses Barack Obama of reneging on deal regarding lobby reform. Obama expresses regrets if McCain thinks that's what Obama actually did. The full story is here. The Sun-Times article is typical of MSM reporting:
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) received a dressing down Monday from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who accused the freshman of using the ethics reform issue for "self-interested partisan posturing."
In a sarcastic letter, McCain accused Obama, the Senate Democrats' new lead spokesman on ethics, of not wanting to sincerely negotiate a bipartisan reform of lobbying.
Obama replied Monday that he was "puzzled" over McCain's letter and pledged to continue to work together on reform.
One wonders if the DNC really understands or cares what is going on here. While Obama's response was okay, McCain's tirade was not about Obama's recent alleged actions....it was about running for President, and thus is at least as partisan as he accuses Obama of being (but then, terrabytes have been used up on this site documenting Republicans and their use of projection as a strategic tool). McCain's letter is a calculated action to frame himself as the tough, strong leader, and the Democrats as wimps. Judging from the reporting, his strategy was an unqualified success. That Obama could conceivably be running against McCain in 2012 makes McCain's move all that much more impressive.
But it needn't have succeeded, and could have backfired. While Obama's response is perfectly appropriate, it only makes sense strategically if, behind the scenes, someone is battling the McCain frame with a different frame: that of Democrats as reasoned statesmen and John McCain as a raving lunatic - the unstable, Howard Dean of his party, if you will (disclaimer: I speak of MSM meme as created by the right-wing echo-chamber only, not the reality of Dean himself).
On the same day that Barack Obama was issuing his bland but reasoned statement, I believe that someone else should have been pointing out how unstable, hard-to-work-with, and temperamental McCain is. The beauty is that whoever is doing the pointing-out has the George W Bush primary campaign material to draw upon. If McCain objects to Bush's characterizations of McCain as now echoed by Democrats, one need only ask if McCain is saying Bush is a liar. Etc. Etc.
Exhibit B
Harry Reid apologizes, yells at staff. In case you missed it.
I have to give the Democrats credit for trying, on this one:
Democratic aides dismissed the spat as a misunderstanding and said that Reid and other Democrats who oppose the bill would not back down from their position that it is a giveaway to special interests.
"Sen. Reid did not mean to hurt Sen. Specter's feelings, but this is a bad bill and he's not going to let anyone change the subject and try to hide that fact. Why give a $20 billion bailout to big corporate interests when we could be helping regular Americans?" said Reid spokeswoman Rebecca Kirszner.
Sorry, but we don't make points and then backtrack on them. I believe that it would have been better to suggest that if Specter was not partaking of the gravy train, then he was certainly providing cover for those who did by accusing Reid of slander. And then Reid apologizes. That is such a sign of weakness --- and frankly not the kind of thing I've come to expect from him.
Exhibit C
Fetal pain. Okay, this one comes around every so often. Here's an example. The latest was last week when the Post ran a story about how state legislatures are considering notification of fetal pain.
Democratic response? zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
This is, admittedly a bit of a tricky issue. If you're going to have an abortion, I suppose you should know everything that might happen. But the point here is that we finally have the hammer to bang the Republicans over the head with regard to "Junk Science" and "Sound Science." I have to use these terms in quotes because as Republicans use them, what they call "junk science" is really, usually, sound science, and what they call "sound science" is in reality proven, verified fact. The way it works, according to the excellent missive, The Republican War on Science, is that since scientific findings, particularly with regard to environmental issues, often work against Republicans and their purse-holders, Republicans have raised the bar for proof before they will agree to action. It is a classic delaying tactic.
But now that some studies are out which MAY show that fetal pain exists, Republicans are embracing them without question. I ask you: should Republicans ever again use the term "junk science" with regard to environmental science without ever being reminded of how they congealed around the concept of fetal pain?
I would not suggest, by the way, that those who oppose such legislation fall in the trap of using the "junk science" term to describe the fetal pain tests. That would acknowledge that what the Republicans usually do to environmental science is valid, when it clearly is not.