Yep, I'm definitely grumpy.

Blame it on a rotten spring cold.

Or blame it on Josh Feit, who waxes defensively about his Cantwell coverage of late...

While we do a lot of advocacy journalism here ("Hey, Gov. Christine Gregoire, will you please stand up to the Board of Pharmacy!"), my coverage of Cantwell’s detractors from the anti-war left does not fall into that category. I’m writing about the anti-war folks and their challenge to Cantwell’s reelection bid because it’s a fascinating news story: Cantwell constituents are holding her accountable for a major vote and they're jarring her campaign in the process.

Really, Josh? First, "Cantwell constituents" deserves some kind of qualifier. Senator Cantwell has millions of constituents. Most of them probably don't have a clear understanding of her position on the war at all, though they may have heard she's somehow "for" it. Many, including myself, know her position and disagree with it but, for a variety of reasons, will campaign for and vote for Maria regardless. Then there's the fractional faction of anti-war zealots who somehow think they can hasten an end to the war by "jarring" Maria's campaign.

Out of the millions of Cantwell constituents, this latter group numbers what? Hundreds, maybe? Even thousands, perhaps. Out of millions.

So how does a group so far out of even the Democratic Party mainstream, which flows pretty hard to the left in these parts, garner the influence and attention to undermine Maria's fundraising and grassroots organizing? Well, through the indulgence of reporters who find the story "fascinating"…or should I say "scintillating"? Frankly, it's the alternative press version of sweeps week journalism.

Beyond the complaints of a marginal, if vocal, faction, what's the story? Josh suggests...

Cantwell voted for the war, and she's a U.S. Senator, and so I think she has an extra responsibility (unlike me, for example) to have some answers. There’s a story in watching her try to come up with those answers in this historic election year.

Maria would doubtless second his sense that she has, as a result of her vote on the authorization to use force if necessary (not "for the war") and has expressed her heightened sense of responsibility for the outcome in Iraq in turn. There's no story, though, about her attempt to "come up with" answers. She's come up with her answer, and has s expressed it consistently and repeatedly. Some people, of course, don't like her answer, a dissatisfaction they tend to express as "She won't answer my question" rather than the more accureate "She won't give me the answer I want."

I don't particularly like her answer. Maria has adopted the "year of transition" approach that's been promulgated by the Democratic Congressional caucuses. I don't like it much when Darcy Burner walks a similar line. Landmarks, timetables, all a little to fuzzy and open ended and too dependent on the sudden arrival of competence in the White House for me (I'm a supporter of that Kerry fella's call for an immediate move to a staged withdrawal).

It is a position, though. She's given her answer.

Maybe the real story is the willful deafness of the activist fringe. Maybe the story's about the unwarranted, slightly sensationalist, elevation of that fringe in the press. Maybe the story is about how totally awful the notion of Mike McGavick representing the state of Washington in the United States Senate truly is.

But Maria "trying to come up with" an answer that she's already come up with and repeatedly expressed?

Sorry. No story.