Distractions!

To read the Washington Examiner's piece on the antics of big-time DNC operative Hari Sevugan is to see an extensive exercise in the politics of distraction. Sevugan has spent the past day or so trying to inject Sarah Palin into the MA Senate race. The following paragraphs encapsulate the thrust of the activity:

Early Monday afternoon, Sevugan sent out an email to reporters featuring a link to a story on the lefty website TPM. The headline: "Is Sarah Palin Avoiding Mass Senate Race?" The story quoted a Democratic strategist saying that "it's interesting" that Palin is "nowhere to be found in this race." TPM conceded that GOP sources say there has been "no talk" about Palin visiting Massachusetts. But that didn't stop Sevugan, who is quoted declaring that Palin's supporters "are anxious for her to weigh in." At the top of his email to journalists, Sevugan wrote, "Come on, Sarah, why are you being so shy?"

A couple of hours later, Sevugan was emailing again, with a message entitled, "Has the Pit Bull lost her bark?" What followed was a statement from Sevugan on "the surprising silence from Sarah Palin on Republican Scott Brown's bid for the U.S. Senate." Sevugan demanded to know: "Where on earth is Sarah Palin herself? Clearly her supporters are anxious for her to weigh in."

Not long after that, Sevugan sent out another email to reporters, this one with a link to a post by TPM alumnus Greg Sargent, who now writes a lefty blog for the Washington Post. Sargent's post featured Sevugan's question with the headline, "Dems on Palin: 'Has the Pit Bull Lost Her Bark?'"

Everyone seems to know why there's such an emphasis on trying to bring up Palin, who might be a little too "red meat" for the independents and moderate Democrats Brown will need to win on January 19.

While Sevugan's emails represent an amusing attempt to put Scott Brown in an uncomfortable position, they also underscore the paucity of affirmative claims made on Coakley's behalf right now. Is that it---bringing Sarah Palin into the Senate race? Talking about swift boats and Karl Rove?

The Coakley campaign seems in some ways to be edging closer to running a 2006/2008 campaign, in which she pins her hopes on anti-Bush antipathy. However, it's now 2010. That anti-Bush venom might have waning effectiveness. Marc Ambinder hits upon what I think is some mainstream Democratic thinking here:

5. Health care isn't popular. The economy drags down everything. To keep afloat in this scuzzy water, Democrats are going to have to crisply define their Republican opponents as champions of the failed policies that got the country into this mess. Because it is mess. Democrats can't run on stewardship or governance. It's a gamble, and it's not always going to work, but running against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney can be effective, especially in races that'll come down to base turnout.

If you can't "run on stewardship or governance" as a majority party, the only thing you have left is slamming the other guy and playing the blame game. Unfortunately, the blame game will not improve the employment situation, render the health-care bill a magnificent cure-all, or solve all our foreign policy woes. Indeed, that game might not even win elections.

(Sidenote (vis-a-vis of all the fancied historical parallels between Obama and Franklin Roosevelt): was it mainstream media opinion in 1934 Washington that Democrats couldn't run on governance? Seeing that Democrats gained 9 Senate seats in 1934, I'm doubtful...)