My day job is managing director in a communications agency. That means I spend a great deal of time thinking about what someone should say, how they should say it, and what will actually be heard by those who hear it.

I also just as frequently wonder why someone hasn't said something.

I'll have much more on this later, but it's hard not to come to the conclusion that congressional Democrats are now paying the price for not making it clear right after the 2006 election that, at least in the Senate, they were going to have a much smaller majority than the one the GOP had the previous six years and, therefore, that getting anything done would be difficult. The 55-45 Republican majority, which made it hard for the GOP to get much done in 2005-2006, turned into a 51-49 Democratic majority in 2007. And that's if all of the senators who are presidential candidates are in Washington and voting.

Under these circumstances, did anyone really think that an effort to limit funding for activities in Iraq and Afghanistan had any chance of succeeding?

Better question: Why didn't the Democrratic leadership get out the message that only incremental changes from existing policies were likely to be possible?