Not working, obviously: “Two car bombs exploded in an outdoor market in Baghdad on Sunday, killing at least 56 people and injuring scores in the deadliest attack since U.S. and Iraqi forces began a major security push around the capital last week.” Note that this, like the vast majority of bombing attacks, came in a Shiite neighborhood (as did a less deadly attack in Sadr City) which raises the question of why driving Muqtada al-Sadr temporarily out of the country and screaming about Iranian support of Shiite militias is supposed to help stabilize Iraq.

As you may have read in Jamie Kirchick’s column, it’s never the case that Israel’s critics get smeared as anti-semites. Or, as Kirchick’s boss, New Republic editor in chief Martin Peretz put it, either “Carter is actually batty” or else “he is animated by a very strong animus towards Jews.”

Here on the CDC’s website you can read about dracunculiasis, Guinea Worm Disease, an ailment found in Africa where contaminated water leads to worm larvae getting inside your body. “During the next 10-14 months, the female Guinea worm grows to a full size adult 60-100 centimeters (2-3 feet) long and as wide as a cooked spaghetti noodle,” at which point “a blister develops on the skin at the site where the worm will emerge” that “causes a very painful burning sensation.” After a day or two, it ruptures and the worm emerges after which time you “may be unable to work or resume daily activities for an average of 3 months.” What’s more, “Almost invariably the skin lesions caused by the worm develop secondary bacterial infections, which exacerbate the pain, and extend the period of incapacitation to weeks or months-causing in some cases disabling complications, such as locked joints and even permanent crippling.”

The good news, is that, as Nicholas Kristof reports, “because of [Jimmy] Carter’s two-decade battle against Guinea worm disease, it is expected to be eradicated worldwide within the next five years. It will be the first ailment to be eliminated since smallpox in 1977.” The point is that there’s a real cost to these smear campaigns. Carter does many good works around the world through his leadership of the Carter Center. Obviously, though, if the idea gets out there that Carter is motivated by hatred of Jews, then people aren’t going to want to be associated with Carter or the Carter Center which would be a very bad thing for, for examples, victims of horrifying parasite infections.

It seems to me that as of one day before Election Day 2006, progressives had a solid grasp of what good things would flow from winning congressional majorities. In brief:

• No more domestic agenda for George W. Bush.
• Oversight hearings.
• Control of the agenda to rame issues in ways favorable to the Democrats for 2008.

Sometime in December, however, people seem to have gotten it into their head that something else would happen. That narrow congressional majorities were actually going to seize control of American national security policy in the face of determined opposition from the President of the United States supported nearly uniformly by his copartisans in congress. Thus, Matt Stoller includes on his list of “groups and individuals” who are “blocking real progress on Iraq,” “Harry Reid, who failed to get a vote on a non-binding resolution in the Senate, and doesn’t think his original war vote was wrong. It’s Bush’s fault apparently that Reid voted for the war. Like with his stance on Alito, Reid is giving the impression of action, but not the teeth.”

Well, no. Look, Matt Yglesias leading a caucus of 51 Democratic Senators that includes Joe Lieberman, Bill Nelson, and Tim Johnson couldn’t get much done in these circumstances either. Nor could Matt Stoller. It’s not Reid’s fault that there aren’t 60 votes for a non-binding resolution on Iraq in the Senate (except in the sense that the “nuclear option” fight was mishandled way back in the day, and Democrats should have tried to abolish filibusters altogether). Blame Lieberman. Blame Jeff Sessions. And, again, ask yourself: If Reid’s resolution is so useless, why is the GOP so determined to defeat it? And if it’s so difficult to get 60 votes for this measure, what would the point be in proposing something more far-reaching that would only fail by a larger margin? The sad reality is that what Matt and I would like to see the Democrats accomplish is, under the circumstances, very difficult to achieve. Progressives should keep the pressure on for action, but we need to understand that objective circumstances matter. This is a slow boring of hard boards kind of situation, and it’s extremely frustrating, but it’s also George W. Bush’s fault, not Reid’s.