Say it ain't so, Jenny?

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but - Jesus!

I've seen limp lettuces with more solidity and pep than this.

I'm not talking so much about substance, but language and presentation. (And, yes, I am talking about the substance, too.)

In a piece yesterday, I said

official Dem prose is gnaw-your-arm-off boring. It has the fire of a dead rat, the emotional appeal of - well, a dead rat. Pretty much all ways round, it's a dead rat.

Think of it: the Dems have their best chance in a decade to win a house of Congress - who knows, perhaps both - this November. They should be fired with a passion that's on the verge of revolutionary.

Power is Viagra to politicians - and these guys? They're not giving any woman much pleasure any time soon, by the sound of things. (Gals - that's an analogy...)

First thing: what in the six points would a GOP disagree with, or be able simply to reword to come up with an acceptable text?

Point 1 is a problem - but strike the GOP reference and you get something like:

We will end the Republican culture of corupption and restore continue to provide a government as good as the people it serves.

Point 4:

We will continue to create jobs that will stay in America by restoringproviding opportunity and driving innovation.

Point 6 passes uncut.

So score 1 out of 6 that causes the GOP (at least momentary) difficulty.

Second thing: let's compare the notorious Contract with America.

(There's notoriously controversy about how much the Contract affected the 94 election - either directly or indirectly (by pumping up or providing agenda to GOP candidates before it was announced to the public). I'm just concerned with the wording.)

The difference: CwA is specific, specific, specific!

It's in two parts: the first is detailed/picky procedural changes to House rules that didn't require Clinton's approval.

The second is ten bills (with names, even) that the House GOP leadership pledged to bring to the House floor. Note - not to become law, not even to pass the House. Just to bring them to the House floor.

And that's it.

The Dem Six Points are waffle, pure and simple.

Just like Real Security.

And when I see

Dean said that this had been tested in all parts of the country and does well everywhere. He said that Reid and Pelosi had signed off on it as well.

Polling is vital, focus groups, too. I'm not being prissy or Leveller or Luddite about it. We have to listen to what they say.

You have to ask yourself, though: did the focus groups approve because the Dems have been so successful in lowering expectations about their policies/presentation that any old bollocks is now acceptable to folks who are tired and depressed with politics and just want something different to happen?

There's a complete mismatch within the Dem ranks here: so much fire in the 'netroots' (much of it born of ignorance, intensely myopic, game for any circular firing-squad going - but fire, nevertheless) and so little in the official party apparatus.

Count me - just for five minutes right now - among the depressed.

(This isn't directed at you, Jenny - or anyone else in particular attending the DNC meeting. I'm not taking shots or blaming anyone in particular for this. I'm sure you were all doing your best.

It's an institutional problem that needs an institutional solution.

But it does need to be fixed.)