You know, I very infrequently disagree with digby's analysis of the news, but when I read the execrable Adam Nagourney's piece about Democratic prospects in today's Times (shorter AdNags, as ever ready with an upside spin for the party he supports: Being a loser is the new black) I was struck by what he didn't say. Thus:

But here is a slightly heretical question, being asked only partly in jest right now: Is it really in the best interest of the Democratic Party to win control of the House and Senate in November? Might the party's long-term fortunes actually be helped by falling short?

As strange as it might seem, there are moments when losing is winning in politics. Even as Democrats are doing everything they can to win, and believe that victory is critical for future battles over real issues, some of the party's leading figures are also speculating that November could represent one of those moments.

From this perspective, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world politically to watch the Republicans struggle through the last two years of the Bush presidency.

Thus far, we don't have the views of Democrats. We have Adam Nagourney telling us that his thumb tastes better than any other thumb in the whole world and we wish we could suck Adam Nagourney's thumb in the New York Times, but we can't, because he's Adam Nagourney and we're not, which is why, parenthetically, he has access to that shadowy but powerful group within the Democratic party, the "some" Democrats

Indeed, some Democrats worry that the worst-case scenario may be winning control of Congress by a slim margin, giving them responsibility without real authority.

then, at long last, at the bottom of paragraph five, a name

"The most politically advantageous thing for the Democrats is to pick up 11, 12 seats in the House and 3 or 4 seats in the Senate but let the Republicans continue to be responsible for government," said Tony Coelho, a former House Democratic whip.

Tony Coelho

Tony the guy who was responsible for Democratic strategy in the 1994 Congressional elections Coelho.

Tony the guy who was tossed out of the Gore campaign because he was under criminal investigation wanted to spend more time with Andy Card's kids Coelho.

Tony was free to take on the Gore campaign because he was forced to resign the House in disgrace wanted to spend more time with Andy Card's kids Coelho

Tony didn't reappear in politics until they needed a "Democratic insider" to trash Kerry Coelho

and as that would indicate, pretty much everyone who was willing to talk to Nagourney on the record in terms that even vaguely suggested support for some portion of the putative reasoning behind this vaporous groundswell of strategic loss planning is someone who either jumped or was pushed out of Democratic politics.

(ed: mixed my kauses) he did get this guy, who according to his HuffPo bio has a blog because his brother is Mickey Kaus

Even though Ms. Pelosi enjoys notable support in her party, her performance was panned even by fellow Democrats. "I was screaming at the TV as if it were Bush being interviewed," wrote Stephen Kaus, a lawyer and contributor to huffingtonpost.com, a liberal blog.

I'm not always a huge fan of our leadership, but I can't see any internal evidence in this remarkable bit of special pleading suggesting that anyone who even has access to our leadership gave Adam Nagourney any information on the yummy goodness of his thumb that he didn't already have.

And, of course, "some" Democrats do agree.

I'm guessing maybe not so much the ones who vote for us.