Is it the message, stupid?

I'm less pessimistic than you are on the messaging front, Dave. The New Deal and containment were two relatively complex programs that were able to be explained so they gained the support of the American people. The changes that Sarkozy is proposing to make in France are pretty complex, but he seems to have been able to get at least tentative support for them.

The Dems need to figure out what they stand for, then decide on a strategic context (maybe it's the story, stupid) for promoting it, then come up with some compelling messaging that appeals to the heart as well as the head. I don't see any issue in which we can't do this. I think that there are 3 key reasons why this hasn't happened so far: the permanent campaign mode, the weakness of the party and the relative strength of the GOP on messaging. Given how close Dems are to each other on most key issues, the primaries are really about character and personality, so there is no incentive to put out comprehensive policy proposals and messages, especially when they just provide ammunition for the other side. And there is no real center within the party building up a message for longer than the next election cycle. The DLC did this for a while, but its day has passed.

I think that something like "tough but smart" could be a core of good Hillary messaging on terrorism. Getting into an argument on whether we agree there is a "War on Terror" or not is fighting on the GOP's terrain. Except on Iraq (which plays differently in the UK), Hillary could learn a lot from Gordon Brown message on terror.