These House (or Senate) leadership campaigns are inside baseball. This is where the pols and pundits have total sway over decisions and events. And that is generally the way it should be.

Where all of the above need to learn "their place" is out here, when they go about bartering seats in national public elections that's where the decisions belong TO US, the grassroots voters.

Well said Chris.

Words of wisdom.  Let's get to work.  Let's make it so that crooks in Florida can't steal elections any more.  Let's oppose the Sociopath-in-Chief, etc. etc.

Despite the odds and the incestuous swift-boating of Murtha, Pelosi showed courage and leadership standing up for the person she thought would help her fulfill the most important item on the Democratic agenda. Onward!

Hoyer is a good choice, he will serve the Party well.

I agree on keeping the focus elsewhere ... it didn't quite grab my attention. The one thing that did get through to me, though, is that Murtha seems like an impediment to investigating war corruption among contractors. That seemed a subterranean thread to what I saw. I could be wrong about that, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.

That would be why Waxman endorsed Hoyer, I think. Murtha came out against the war, but I always sort of assumed he did that with the encouragement of some uniformed folks in Washington who couldn't do it themselves (as well as, seemingly, from Nancy Pelosi). I admire his courage and toughness in taking all the abuse that was sent his way, but I never confused him for some kind of crusader for military reform because of it.

Amen. Hoyer v. Murtha is a distraction. Back to business.

I think Hoyer will be good.  Her certainly looks the part!  I was rooting a bit for Murtha, because of the good he did the party this last cycle, but Hoyer is the more organized player.  He helped recruit and fund candidates.  We have a lot of work to do, as Chris said, and Steny will help get that done.  No one is perfect.  Let's just hope that Pelosi has what it takes to get the job done.  I, for one, think she does.

Let's roll!

Pelosi discredited! Democrats in disarray! Republicans reuinited and set to stage a comeback! Dems lose even when they win! GOP wins even when it loses!

Oh, please, the MSM is SO clueless about all of this, as it has been about interpreting this election, be it out of true cluelessness or, more likely I think, an attempt to undermine Pelosi and the Democrats' victory and majority.

Hoyer's victory Pelosi and Murtha's loss is ultimately going to be seen as a yawner. Her power, authority and credibility have not been undermined in any meaningful way. If anything, by backing Murtha--whom she probably knew would lose--she sent Hoyer and his supporters a message that she's in charge now, not them. I.e. the Blue Dogs, DLCers and "moderates" are no longer running the show, and will have to fall in line now. Pelosi is the majority's real leader, not Hoyer.

Which is what the business has revealed about what we can expect from Pelosi as Speaker.

It's the first practical test of her political nous in action since the election - and, I'm sorry to say, according to the stuff that I've seen in the media, she flunked.

Not in preferring Murtha over Hoyer, but in so crassly and undernecessary pinning her colors to Murtha's mast - in particular, by issuing that letter of support on Sunday.

Surely, she and her staff have been talking every day since the election to every rep on one thing and another - the natural forum for lobbying on the Maj Leader job would be face to face. So why should a letter be needed at all? To provoke a pro-Murtha uprising of grassroots sans culottes?

Which raises the still-unanswered question: what did she think she was doing? What benefit did she count on securing by going so publicly and wholeheartedly for Murtha?

Point one is, of course, how have her whip counts been shaping - since the election, but also before? When (if at all) did she know that Murtha was going to lose by miles? How close to the actual vote numbers did her counts get?

Point two is - when did she decide to go all-out on Murtha? Was, for instance, his announcement of his candidature in June part of the plan? (Must have been, surely?) Because the context in which she took the decision must bear on the reasons she did so.

Point three is - who exactly was advising her about this? Was this a solo run, or did she have a solid knot of senior Dem reps pitching in? A good many senior Dems announced for Hoyer before the election - presumably none of them was in her Murtha kitchen cabinet. What sort of dickering went on with a view to boosting Murtha's support?

At the very least, what I'd like to have is some plausible explanation of how what Pelosi has done on Hoyer/Murtha makes sense politically for the Dem party.

Because, right now, I can't think of one.

Just come across this piece from the Hotline Blog timed at 0745 today.

It lists the reps who had publicly declared for one or other candidate: 91 for Hoyer, 33 for Murtha. Since there are 231 Dem reps-elect, that leaves 107 reps who had not declared.

Of course, reps could have lied, or changed their mind. But, even so, those numbers suggest just how unlikely a Murtha win was at first light ET this morning.

Personally I was rooting for Murtha, but with less and less enthusiasm as the days went on.  He's conservative on most issues, which would give our caucus leadership a big tent feel, but obviously he had the balls to become a leader on something as important as Iraq.  But I just can't get over his ethics problems.  I know Hoyer has them too, but it was clear that both the right-wing and MSM were making Murtha into a Delay-esque poster child for corruption, the storyline stuck for him and din't stick to Hoyer.  Same thing with the Boehner-Blunt race earlier this year: both had ethical problems, but the selective perception of the media allowed Boehner to emerge as somehow the "reform" candidate, and perception does matter.

As long as Hoyer isn't constantly steeping on Pelosi's toes, I actually think this vote represents a net plus for our maintaining or expanding our majority.  It shows that we're not the same top-down, rubber stamping coalition that the Delay Republicans were, and our conservative members (especially those conservative freshmen) can go back to their districts if they want to and say that they voted against Pelosi's leadership team.  As long as we make some legislative progress in the next two years, that's what really matters.

So in a way I'm relieved that my candidate lost.  At least I can start focusing on issues where I can be confident in taking this position or that.

I consider myself as much of a political junkie as anybody, but jeez, a week after the election that put a stake in total GOP control of the government, I just can't get worked up over who won majority leader and whether this is a defeat for Pelosi. I wish I could care. All I care about is stopping the BushCheneyRove administration from committing any more dangerous acts. The job of the Democratic Congress is going to be to thwart Bush/GOP insanity and conduct a holding action until a Dem can be elected president in '08. As long as that gets done, I don't care who is majority leader. And I'm really, really tired of all the speculation about what kind of speaker Pelosi will be. She won't even take office for another six weeks. Le'ts just enjoy the victory and do two other things: support the Dem leadership to put a check on BushCo and remind them of the message the people delivered last week.

From blogger Arthur Silber:

The Democrats won decisively on November 7 -- and, just as in the case of Vietnam, they will do nothing to hasten the end of this murderous nightmare. They will be dragged out of Iraq screaming and protesting every inch of the way, just like the Republicans.

As most Democrats and their supporters recognize, the catastrophe of Iraq was the single most critical issue in the election. And yet, the new Democratic Congress will do nothing to significantly alter our course.

So remind me again: just why do we even have elections?

Further thoughts - on Intelligence:

This is an echo of the majority leader fight.  It's got the same setup:  Pelosi opponent vs someone with a questionable ethical past.  (I will certainly stipulate to John Murtha's critical importance in highlighting and spearheading a rational approach for us on Iraq.  I have no sense whatsoever of Hasting's contributions in the House.  Maybe that tells me something right there.)

Why not choose Rush Holt for the Intelligence Committee? He seems like the smartest one on the Committee to me and a good compromise. You get in trouble, with either Harman or Hastings. (If I had to choose between the two, I'd choose Harman - the choice of Murtha was really terrible because of the taint of scandal, as Hastings has that same taint. In his case, it's actually not a taint. It's real.)

Give us all a break from the media and the right wing gloating at Democratic dissension the moment we come into power after enduring 12 years of those corrupt mutant Republicans in control. Remember, we've got to fight against the corruption of the White House for another two years at least.

Whaddya say, Nancy?

Well said. I supported Murtha, but the vote has been taken. Let's take Hoyer at his word when he said that the Democrats have reelected a winning team and do just what Chris says, get back to work on a job now barely begun.