Victory for terrorists vs. Victory for democracy

One wonders how they got elected in the first place, given their proven tin ears and propensity to choose exactly the wrong frame. I'm talking about congressional Democrats, of course.

Today's example of how not to capitalize on victory comes from Nancy Pelosi, as reported in the Washington Post [emphasis added]:

In striking down the military commissions Bush sought for trials of suspected members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, the high court Thursday invited Congress to establish new rules and put the issue prominently before the public four months before the midterm elections. As the White House and lawmakers weighed next steps, House GOP leaders signaled they are ready to use this week's turn of events as a political weapon.

House Majority Leader A. Boehner (R-Ohio) criticized House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's comment Thursday that the court decision "affirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system." That statement, Boehner said, amounted to Pelosi's advocating "special privileges for terrorists."

Similar views ricocheted around conservative talk radio -- Rush Limbaugh called Pelosi's comments "deranged" on his show Thursday....

"It would be good politics to have a debate about this if Democrats are going to argue for additional rights for terrorists," said Terry Nelson, a prominent GOP political strategist who was political director for Bush's reelection campaign in 2004.

No, my dear Ms. Pelosi. We do not describe the Supreme Court's decision as a victory for detainees' rights, though it certainly is such. We describe Thursday's decision as a victory for American democracy. We say the decision reaffirms that we have a president, not a military dictator or a king. We say that the Supreme Court has reminded all Americans that our government prevails because no-one, especially not the president, is above or beyond the law.

The administration will try to make this about "the terrorists." They are already cranking up the spin machine:

A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the issue is still being debated internally, seemed to hint at the potential political implications in Congress. "Members of both parties will have to decide whether terrorists who cherish the killing of innocents deserve the same protections as our men and women who wear the uniform," this official said.

No, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is about the imperial presidency, the excesses and abuse of the Constitution by the Bush administration in its flawed prosecution of the so-called War on Terror. If Dems like Nancy Pelosi don't understand how to frame this in their remarks, how to hammer the administration with this defeat, they will remain in the minority.