That's the question at "The Arena," Politico's clubby feature where Washington insiders gallantly present their talking points on the day's hot topic. Note the clever phrasing: HOW bad is this for Democrats? HOW good is it for Republicans?
Speaking of Politico, which I can't believe people are only just now realizing is horrible and evil, I was mightily impressed with Andrew Sullivan's scalpel-precise description of how Washington insidery press works, with Politico serving as only the latest example, even if they're a particularly egregious case:
[Politico Cheney stenographer Mike Allen's] role, he seems to believe, is to become very very close to people with power, to become their friends and confidants, in order to get an advantage over delivering the messages those people want to deliver. And if he can become their main outlet, he gets more status in Washington as someone more connected than anyone else, he garners more pageviews for press releases from often anonymous power-brokers, and thereby generates more money for an organization he helped found.
This is what Washington journalists think is their job; and they value one another by the proximity of their ties to the powerful. In a business sense, they can also brag about their close ties to Cheney as a way to get major corporations to buy ads under the impression that the powerful read the Politico. This is the model. And it's a problem.
OK, but is it worse for Democrats, or better for Republicans?