Well, what else was she going to do after stupidly raising the specter of endless investigations should the Democrats regain some sort of power in Congress?

I think Bush should be impeached, and all the crap his administration has engaged in exposed to the light of day. But if I were hoping to capitalize on the current situation, I wouldn't be talking about it right now. While the prospect might be emotionally satisfying to all us outraged opponents of BushCo., and seen as a rallying cry to turn out the vote, it's the sort of thing we need to just keep under our hats until after the election. A little bit of discretion here would go a long way.

If more and more people are becoming disenchanted with their supposedly straight-shooting and resolute commander-in-chief, and pursuaded that the Dems may be a viable alternative, the idea here is (as it has been since 2000) to formulate a concise, positive agenda to give the disillusioned and disheartened something positive to embrace.

Americans want to feel good about themselves, and their government. Dems need to offer them that, and simply keep the option for investigations/impeachment, etc., up their sleeves. A lot of folks are going to be turned off by the prospect of two years of governmental paralysis and a political nuclear exchange.

Let's get some power back first, and then survey the landscape, see what needs to happen. The tactical and strategic ineptitude of the Dems is so discouraging, and is such a disservice to the principles we ostensibly embrace and would like to return to Washington.

I'm not saying that Bush shouldn't pay, and that such an accountability moment wouldn't be good for the nation. But I don't know how much stomach there is for that outside the liberal core, and I'd rather not give the Republican base something to rally around when there's no need. Let them stay home. Then the Dems might really have some options, and be working from a position of some strength for a change. That would be just as good for the country.

We talk a lot about "electability" and how its messy calculus keeps getting us into trouble. Yet, we also seem to maintain that both Kerry and Gore could've won (or actually did), simply by running more effective campaigns. So, the consensus seems to be that they were in fact electable, but unable to run campaigns that could seal the deal. Gore's wooden, condescending persona and running from Clinton did him in, likewise Kerry's passivity, and blue-blooded mein.

So, what makes someone electable? I'm thinking the following, for a start:

1. The ability to deliver a concise, coherent, compelling message that motivates the base and reassures everyone else. You can stand for almost anything, but it needs to be presented in terms that speak to and complement the average American's sense of values: Right vs. wrong, just vs. unfair, strong vs. weak, patriotic, and so on.

"Stronger at home, more respected in the world." Hey, I agree, but what a limp distillation, a perfect example of why Kerry lost. It's an American tenet that only wimps care what other people think of you.

2. A willingness and capacity to fight fire with fire, looking strong and principled while doing it, not defensive, opportunistic, or whiney.

3. A clear record of accomplishment

4. An absence of baggage

5. A strong presence that projects honesty, integrity, vigor, and strength.

Given the inevitable prospect of swift-boating in '08, the Dem candidate needs to have a consistent record, and an unimpeachable character and background. This is the best insulation. Hillary is not bullet-proof on either count, and doesn't seem to measure up well in the other areas I mention.

Warner/Feingold ... The real question is how well they can craft their positions into a message that is broadly appealing to how Americans like to see themselves, and whether they can deliver it with credibility. And whether they seem like a leader who understands threats and how to deal with them.