On Friday I wrote that "superb as [Nancy] Pelosi is in backroom negotiating and vote-counting and pluralism-embracing, I believe she'd be doing the party a favor if she were to step aside [as minority leader], perhaps in an éminence grise kind of way. Because … Pelosi's strength 'is in what she does away from the microphones.' In front of them, she can be a public relations disaster."
No matter how much you may like Pelosi, you'd probably like winning recontrol of the House even more — which is less likely as long as Pelosi remains Republicans' top target in grainy, slow-mo, B&W TV advertising against Democratic candidates nationwide. That's already begun. And it has begun because it's effective.
It is scarcely my opinion alone that Democratic candidates will need all the help they can get this November, and in pursuit of that, they'd be well advised to eliminate any drags. Thus Ms. Pelosi's willingness to bow out of the picture, literally, would be most appreciated.
Some readers agreed with me, some didn't, which is the way discussion of political topics is supposed to proceed. One outside observer in unambiguous agreement is the Cook Report's House specialist, David Wasserman, who over the weekend was quoted by the NY Times, saying this:
"There’s no question [Pelosi has] been a highly skilled legislative tactician for Democrats for decades; she has also been very effective for Democrats raising money and behind the scenes. But if House Democrats could do one thing to improve their odds of winning the House back, it would probably be to install leaders that no one’s ever heard of."
That "one thing" would start, and perhaps end, with the minority leader's departure — which would gut Republicans' leading strategy to defend their majority. And that's all that interests me.