The Democrats don’t have a lot of assets in their top congressional leadership, neither Nancy Pelosi nor Harry Reid inspire huge amounts of confidence. However, they do have a winner and savvy strategist heading the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who holds Dan Rostenkowski’s old seat, has risen quickly since coming to Congress in 2002. Yesterday, the Chicago Tribune had a story on a breakfast fundraiser Emanuel attended in Ohio for Mary Jo Kilroy who the Democrats hope will knock off #4 House Republican, Rep. Deborah Pryce. (Pryce won with 67% in ’02 and 60% in ’04, so she isn’t likely to lose.)

Jeff Zeleny reports Emanuel doggedly tried to keep the focus on domestic issues while the audience repeatedly kept coming back to national security.

When the Illinois congressman didn't include national security in his top five talking points, a man raised his hand and his voice.

"Can I give you a piece of advice?" said Ford Huffman, a Columbus attorney. "They obviously believe it's their winning issue. Why can't we get out in front with it and say there's not an issue about security? Every American believes in securing America."

Emanuel tried to answer the question, asserting his eagerness to challenge the White House, but said he does not believe national security should be a political issue. As Emanuel spoke, Huffman turned his head and told those sitting around him: "It sounds like we are trying to dodge the issue. People are going to say the Democrats are being wussies.” [snip]

How do we get our message out?" asked Ann Hughes, a Columbus resident who said she is frustrated by the Iraq war and infuriated that the Bush administration is so skilled at guiding the country's political debate. "It so easily gets portrayed that the Democratic Party is negative, and the issue agenda gets controlled by the Republicans."

After Emanuel answered her question, he ticked through a list of five key themes he said the party should push this year: health care, education, energy independence, technology and fiscal discipline.

It was national security, though, that his audience returned to again and again.

This is informative on two levels. First, it shows that Emanuel gets the politics and understands the dilemma the Democrats are in politically in regard to national security. Second, it points to the difficulty Democrats are going to have in moving the debate to non-national security issues.

Zeleny continues:

As others echoed similar concerns, Emanuel buttoned and unbuttoned his dark suit. He shifted the weight on his feet and shook the ice in his water glass. He gently disagreed that he had avoided discussing national security, pointing out that he wanted to avoid the trap of being forced into a defensive posture over it by Republicans.

Emanuel is in a box. He’s aware the Pelosi-Dean rhetoric put the party in a defensive posture on national security but he knows he can’t confront the Deaniac/Kos/MoveOn wing because they represent so much of the Democratic base and energy. Given the problems Bush and the GOP are dealing with and the opportunity for Democrats to finally pick up some seats in 2006, a civil war within the party is the last thing Emanuel wants. So he does the politically smart move, really the only move given the situation, and glosses over national security and pushes: “health care, education, energy independence, technology and fiscal discipline”

The problem here is it is going to be pretty hard for Emanuel to keep the focus on domestic issues when both Rove and his own base want to talk about national security. At some point, the Democrats are going to need to have it out on the war, terrorism and national security. Republican difficulties may kick the can down the road in 2006, but this is an internal Democratic problem that is not going to just go away with a few more House and Senate seats.