Republicans have found the soft underbelly of the administration of President Barack Obama, and her name is Nancy Pelosi.
The Speaker performed admirably during her first two years as the top Congressional leader, elevating pragmatism over purity and successfully stepping back from the limelight to allow others to be the face of the Democratic Party.
But the recent flap over what the CIA did or didnt tell Pelosi years ago when she was briefed by the agency on its interrogation techniques is a reminder of the California Democrats weaknesses.
Unable to crack Obamas personal popularity and aware that his communication skills far exceed those of any GOP leader, Republicans have opted to go after a far weaker adversary, Congressional Democrats. And Pelosi is an easier target not just because it is always fashionable to complain about Congress.
For all of her noteworthy successes and abilities, and they are numerous, the Speaker is relatively weak on television and dealing with the press, as evidenced by her performance at her Thursday press conference. Shes particularly weak when backed into a corner. One longtime associate of the Speaker put it succinctly: She doesnt like dealing with the press. She doesnt like to be questioned.
Too often Pelosi seems flustered, even when she has no reason to be. Maybe its her halting speaking style, or that deer-
in-the-headlights look that she regularly has.
Whatever it is, the California Democrat is a skittish speaker who doesnt convey a sense of confidence and forthrightness. This makes her almost the polar opposite of the president, who invariably seems calm, poised, confident and straightforward.
The irony of the Pelosi-CIA controversy is that Democrats have created a problem for themselves because some in the party want to embarrass and punish members of the Bush administration. If that sounds weirdly reminiscent of the mistake Republicans made during the Clinton years, it is.
Democrats avoided these mistakes until recently because they understood that aggressive tactics could alienate voters and cause moderates to view them as partisan and petty.
Indeed, shortly after the 2006 elections, two high-ranking Democrats told me that the partys victories came about because of Republican mistakes, not because voters had truly embraced Democrats. Both emphasized that their party needed to be cautious in the two years leading up to the 2008 presidential election.
But now, after a second straight drubbing at the polls for Republicans, some Democrats have assumed that voters agree with them on everything. Nothing good happens when party ideologues get too confident about their own moral superiority.
Regardless of where you stand on the Democrats desire to expose the transgressions of the Bush era or on who is telling the truth, the debate over who knew what and when has handed Republicans an issue and a target.