I suppose it's red meat…

…for some faction of activist Democrats that Senator Feingold imagines will create an illusion of viability for his Presidential aspirations, but I personally find nothing commendable in this kind of rhetoric right now…

The consultants and the pundits and others will tell you…that it is dangerous to let there be any real light between our position and the White House’s position, or else you’ll get called soft on terrorism. You already hear people saying that the Michael Hayden nomination will be a great opportunity for the White House to show the Democrats are soft on terrorism…

Actually, most of what I'm hearing about Hayden is Republican leaders throwing him overboard, but supposing the Senator is right. Who, exactly, are these 'consultants, pundits and others' that counsel no light between Democrats and the White House? Just as, perhaps more, importantly, who are their clients? Which Democratic candidates are indistinguishable from Bushco™?

Of course, there's a chance that he doesn't actually know a consultant who counsels any such a thing, or a candidate who has taken any such advice. There's probably merit to the notion, for instance, that stealing a page of anti-consulting rants or two out of Markos' and Jerome's book might yield some entrée to the Daily Kos audience. If nothing else, it's the kind of thing likely to yield some headlines as the very punditocracy he derides looks for evidence to sustain a steady 'Democrats in disarray' drumbeat. The potential advantages for Senator Feingold, who needs to expand his national profile for 2008, aren't hard to identify.

Still, I wonder, how, exactly, does this shotgun blast at Democratic voices, whether they're heard in private councils or the public arena, whether real or imagined, advance the goal of Democratic victory this November? Who benefits? Which Congressional Districts are made more competitive, which Senate seats are put in play, by Feingold's attack on, by virtue of his lack of specifics, virtually any and every Democratic campaign?

As I've repeatedly said, the first question for any candidate in 2008 should be about their efforts to secure victory in 2006. In his lust for the spotlight, Feingold has already shown his willingness to disrupt caucus legislative strategy and embarrass his colleagues. Without specific instances and specific individuals whose merits might actually be examined and discussed, his broad brush assault on his own Party at this critical time is a disqualifying error in the next race for the nomination.