AP:

The public, it turned out, was more unhappy about the war than the Democratic strategists understood.

Er, we understood. But what does a DFH know?

Despite their tentativeness, Democrats won control of the House and Senate in an election in which Iraq played a large role.

At a minimum, these “strategists” need to get out more. At worst….

At the worst they’re unethical consultants who don’t understand the ethical obligations inherent to a fiduciary relationship.

It’s in the best interest of the strategist to keep races structurally close. That way, the strategist’s expertise, media buys, et cetera, can provide the winning margin. The more they can leave the (winning, I grant you) candidate with the feeling of “Phew! That was close!” the better off the strategist is going to be, in terms of billable hours and media buys, for the next election.

Er, could that be why we don’t see strategists recommending anything that would create any tectonic shifts in the political landscape?

Why don’t the strategists recommend massive voter registration drives?

Why don’t the strategists recommend massive efforts on behalf of card check?

Why don’t the strategists recommend massive resistance to politicizing the U.S. Attorney at election time?

Why don’t the strategists recommend massive resistance Republicans stealing elections?

Easy peasy. Because the strategists make all their money, and would far rather spend their time, making media buys in the “battleground” states.

Democrats, the strategists suck. All you guys have to do is show you’ve got some stones.

That’s all the American people want.