At some point last year, Congressman Marion Berry, a conservative Democrat from eastern Arkansas, attended a meeting at the White House to discuss strategy:

Berry recounted meetings with White House officials, reminiscent of some during the Clinton days, where he and others urged them not to force Blue Dogs "off into that swamp" of supporting bills that would be unpopular with voters back home.

"I've been doing that with this White House, and they just don't seem to give it any credibility at all," Berry said. "They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in '94 was you've got me.'

"Having him" is looking more and more like a critical distinction between 1994 and 2010, though perhaps not in the way the President intended. By November, House Democrats could find themselves pining for the 1994 version of Bill Clinton. Despite a year's worth of clear warnings that the Republicans are in a position to take control of the House and potentially the Senate - warnings that weren't available to President Clinton, incidentally - the President has forced vulnerable members to take one tough vote after another.

At the same, time, he's made a number of unforced errors and gaffes. Most of these errors have had some reason or rhyme behind them; you could at least see where the President was coming from. But the same can not be said of the President's decision last Friday to dive into the fray regarding the building of an Islamic Center, which includes a mosque, near Ground Zero in Manhattan.

The President said (video here):

Let me be clear: As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. (Applause.) And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.

This sounded to many, including the New York Times, like a full-throated defense of the project. But later on in the weekend he clarified that he was "not commenting on the wisdom" of the project, but rather was merely defending a broader principle of equal treatment for all religions.

Let's begin with a critical point: the President didn't actually wade into the fray on this issue. There hasn't been much dispute over the right of the Cordoba Initiative to build its center there, though there have admittedly been some attempts to use the judicial or administrative process to foil the building.

Instead, most of the dispute has centered precisely on the wisdom or the propriety of erecting the building in that particular location. And on that critical point, the President - by his own admission on Saturday - punted. Which raises the question: Why even go near the issue in the first place, and risk associating your party with a viewpoint that is unpalatable to a supermajority of Americans?

President Obama's backtracking is all the more troubling because it eviscerates the one defensible (and potentially admirable) reason the President could offer for making such a perilous political leap: standing up to the perceived intolerance of the opponents of the project, consequences be damned. By so doing, the President would be continuing his strategy of rallying the base to enhance turnout in the fall elections. But his subsequent clarification has only left many on the left - who would have applauded a full-throated endorsement of the project - wondering which side of the debate he is on. He has once again managed to please no one.

The decision is especially inexplicable considering the nearness of the election. It is one thing to make an unforced error, such as the Henry Louis Gates gaffe, in off-the-cuff comments in the spring of an off-year. It is entirely another thing to commit a gaffe of this magnitude 75 days before a midterm election in which the President's party faces historic losses -and it is even worse to do so in a prepared, vetted statement.

Perhaps the President thought that, if need be, he could clarify his comments at a later time. The President does, after all, believe that he is the LeBron James of speechmaking and that his ability to persuade rises to the ability of a "gift." But the truth is that for this President, as with any other, if you're explaining, you're losing, no matter how lofty your rhetoric.

The Democrats have precious few news cycles between now and November to build their message, and they need to make the most of them. Instead, the Democrats will spend at least a week's worth of news cycles on this issue.

This process will contribute to the perception of a disorganized and divided Democratic Party. The President's engagement on this issue has likely forced every member of his party to take a stand on the project. While embattled Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid quickly took to the airwaves to oppose the building of the mosque, thereby giving cover to other Democrats to break with the President, Rahm Emanuel is reportedly working hard to keep more Democrats from jumping ship.

Even worse, the choice before these Democrats is lose-lose. If Democrats in swing districts stand with the President, they are taking a dangerous position in areas of the country where there is probably near-universal opposition to the project. If they don't, they risk alienating whatever liberal voters exist in their districts, many (if not most) of whom consider opposition to the project to be rank bigotry.

But ultimately, the most dangerous narrative for Democrats in conservative or swing districts isn't whether they favor or oppose the mosque. The truly dangerous narrative is that these Democrats are enablers of a President and a Democratic Party that is far to the left and out of touch with the mood of many Americans, a narrative that threatens to destroy the coalition that has kept Democrats competitive in elections for the past few decades.

During a speech last week, the President once again reiterated his continued belief that he is a positive game-changer for Democrats when he said "[w]ell, we can politick for three months. They [Republicans] forgot I'm pretty good at politicking." If this is what he considers good politicking, Democrats in swing districts had better run for cover.

--------------------------------------------
Follow the RCP Blog on Twitter.
Become a fan of RCP on Facebook.
--------------------------------------------