I'll admit that calling the DLC the Democratic Losers Club may be the  ultimate falling-off-a-log jab. But it also has the benefit of being true. And perhaps never moreso than now, with the announcement (if you can call this kind of backchannel whispering an announcement) that Tennessee's Harold Ford -- the Democratic Senate candidate who missed 2006's Blue Wave and lost -- will take over as the "organization's" chairman.

Ford steps in as outgoing Iowa governor Tom Vilsack departs to free himself up for a run at the presidency, though it should be noted that:

a Washington source says there was an additional factor in his departure: the widening rift between Vilsack and DLC's permanent leadership over what to do about the crisis in Iraq.

Problem is, Vilsack supports an actual Democratic position on Iraq, and the DLC's wonk leadership (which really wears the pants there, not the elected folks) is having none of that.

And that's why it makes so much sense for the VH-1: I Love the 90s DLC Politburo to go with Harold Ford. After all, they've been in nearly perfect sync of late, losing elections from precisely the same page, as Tom Schaller notes in his latest in Salon:

In the final weeks of the 2006 campaign, one could barely turn on the national cable news or talk shows without seeing Harold Ford. And whenever one did see Ford, he was pandering.

There was the Democratic Senate nominee in a Tennessee restaurant, wearing a camouflage baseball hunting cap and talking about how powerful his Jesus was. There he was endorsing ex-Democrat Joe Lieberman in Connecticut and piling on John Kerry. There he was with his dander up about the New Jersey same-sex marriage ruling. Most egregiously, there was Ford, a 37-year-old black man, telling the MSNBC anchor who asked him if he thought the infamous Republican ad with a white girl telling Ford to "call me" was racist, that he didn't know.

Perfect!

Who better to carry the ball forward in the DLC's continuing mission to undermine any Democrat who's not on their board (and some who are, but who apparently didn't leave fast enough to suit the talking heads) by making themselves available as the go-to source for quotes from "Democrats" calling other Democrats the "angry left?"

And just how does the DLC propagate this message? With a method we here at Daily Kos recognize as "concern trolling." Watch as the DLC's Will Marshall -- with no sense of irony -- tries to sell his version of What Dems Should Do on Iraq by appealing to the need to show Party Unity:

Some Democrats would like to go further--by withholding funding for the additional troops. For a variety of reasons, however, this is a bridge too far. First, where Democrats (joined by some Republicans) would unite behind a resolution disapproving the Bush plan, many will be loath to cut off funding for troops that have already started deploying to Iraq. Why put the party's disunity on public display?

Yes, why indeed? And while we're on the subject, we might as well ask why the DLC would aid and abet the Republican spin that Democrats are actually suggesting withholding funding for troops actually in the field. Every single Democratic proposal on the subject has taken pains to clearly deliniate between funding for troops yet to deploy and troops already on the ground. But -- golly gosh! -- Marshall neglects to point that out! Whoopsie-daisy! My bad!

So yeah, one might well ask why anyone would want to "put the party's disunity on public display." If you believed Marshall actually cared about that, you might wonder why he didn't ask himself that question before serving up this nugget the week before:

"Conventional wisdom says that presidential candidates who want to be responsible on this are going to hurt themselves with the angry, impassioned activist left," said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank. "But the activist left is out of sync with the American public. Americans don't want to concede this is a total debacle."

But practicing what he preaches would only suggest that Marshall was serious about his desire for Party Unity. But that's only of interest if it means lining everyone else up behind his talking points. If the Party unifies behind some other position, well then, that's just angry leftism.

Of course, the fallback position is that even if Democrats aren't unified, we can always worship at the altar of "bipartisanship." Heck, America Loves^TM bipartisanship! That's why the DLC counsels that we ought to be willing to do anything it takes to create it, including giving away all the credit for it. Like so:

Lieberman and McCain teamed up in 2005 on a global warming initiative that got 38 Senate votes and, with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., are proposing a similar measure today. Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, called its outcome "an early test of bipartisanship."

Sure, McCain is a Republican. So getting him to the table with Democrats like Barack Obama and... people... like Joe Lieberman on global warming represents "bipartisanship" in the most naked sense of the word. Of course another way of looking at this -- a way that actually kind of helps win elections -- is to recognize that McCain is coming to the light here, adopting Democratic (i.e., realistic, scientifically-based and sensible) positions on the environment, even as he remains a Republican.

The DLC's version of the story: Thank God! Republicans have agreed to give us cover, and it's safe to come out now.

Real Democrats' version: We were right, and we won.

How perfect then, for both the DLC and actual Democrats, that they've opted to go with Ford, who no longer has constituents to answer to, given that he's the guy whose political prescience led him down this path:

In 2002, Ford challenged Pelosi in the race to become House minority leader. As Anthony York noted in Salon at the time, Ford mocked San Francisco's Pelosi as a "throwback" who practiced a "destructive and obstructive" style of politics. "I don't think Nancy Pelosi's kind of politics is what's needed right now," groused Ford, sounding every bit the Blue Dog Democrat. "Nancy's message, and the course she wants to take us on, is not where America wants to go."

But again, with no more worries about answering to actual voters, Ford's in the right place. He needn't concern himself with Tom Vilsack's plight, that is, finding himself disavowed as he seeks higher office. And it can't hurt that he's already on their page in that respect, noting in his memo to the DLC brass:

I assume there will be an effort to help Senator Clinton's campaign, and I would support such an effort.

But beware, Hillary! Maybe even you can be kicked to the curb:

But the bottom line is that we will need a competitive candidate to endorse some or all of our policy agenda. This is a high priority.

As 2008 grows ever nearer, keep an eye out for who's endorsing "some or all" of the party-fracturing agenda.