David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager, is taking on an “expanded role as an outside adviser to the White House.” In Sunday’s Post, he offers an op-ed diagnosis of what Democrats need to do in the coming year.

If his op-ed accurately depicts what the Obama and broader Democratic strategy is going to be, then I think the floor for Republican wins in the House in 2010 will be about 217 seats and the ceiling is . . . oh, 435?

Plouffe describes the health-care bill as “a good plan that has become a demonized caricature.” It seems to him incomprehensible that a majority might genuinely oppose legislation that includes government fees for having too much health insurance — with or without a union exemption — taxpayer funding of abortions, potential coverage of illegal immigrants, special deals for the states of Nebraska and Louisiana because their senators held out, and the government eventually taking some treatments off the table because they’re deemed insufficiently cost-effective.

Strangely, a few paragraphs later, “Voters are always smarter than they are given credit for.” Except when they disagree with you, huh, David?

He says that “politically speaking, if we do not pass it, the GOP will continue attacking the plan as if we did anyway, and voters will have no ability to measure its upside. If we do pass it, dozens of protections and benefits take effect this year.” Yes, as do a host of new taxes, and the new marriage penalty. (Some may quibble that since the bill is constantly changing with new special bonus provisions for holdout senators, we don’t actually know which taxes will be in it, but I have a hard time believing that the taxes in it will not kick in quickly.)

He mentions “millions of jobs created by the president’s early efforts to restart the economy.” Where? Where? Show me the numbers. Nobody backs that. If millions of jobs were being created, why is the number of jobless increasing? Why has the number of jobs in construction decreased every month since the stimulus passed, since the one thing that the stimulus was supposed to do was create construction jobs on “shovel-ready” projects?

Plouffe writes that “in future elections, it will be clear to all that instead of another Great Depression, Democrats broke the back of the recession with not a single Republican vote in the House.” If I were the president, anyone caught bragging about economic improvement and suggesting that the recession was over while unemployment was in double digits would go in the time-out chair.

He continues: “In the long run, [the stimulus vote] will haunt Republicans especially since they made the mess.” Let’s presume for a moment he means “the mess” as the recession. And let’s move beyond the obvious point that a lot of factors converged to create this recession. Let’s just note that inherent in Plouffe’s argument is the contention that the last chance to mitigate any of the recession occurred in the earliest days of 2007, as the GOP relinquished Congress. Otherwise, we might think that the Democrat-controlled House and Senate could have done something about an already-beginning-to-burst housing bubble, risky investment in subprime-mortgage-based derivatives, the ominous clouds gathering around American automakers, government regulations that encouraged mortgage financing to those at risk of default, etc. Since 2007 and 2008 were pretty lousy years for American governance, Democrats want the public to believe their role in government began on January 20, 2009 — the beginning of another lousy year of governance.

He continues, “That’s why Democrats must create a strong foundation for long-term growth by addressing health care, energy and education reform.” A foundation for long-term growth by making employees more expensive to employers through health-insurance mandates, and energy use more expensive through cap-and-trade.

Plouffe argues that Democrats “shouldn’t accept any lectures on spending.” Funny, the Republicans heard it from Democrats from 2002 to 2006. If the GOP is deemed an illegitimate critic on runaway spending, where do those who are worried about deficits, waste, irresponsible vote-buying sprees, and unsustainable tax burdens go? And while some of the Republican candidates running this cycle are veterans of the Bush era and the GOP Congress from the not-too-distant past, how much of the sins of the Bush era can be put on, oh, Marco Rubio, John Hoeven, Gilbert Baker, Chuck DeVore or Carly Fiorina or Tom Campbell, Martha Roby, Van Tran, Charles Djou, Vaughn Ward, Andy Harris, Frank Guinta, Jon Runyan, Lou Barletta, Keith Fimian, etc.?

The recent wins of Bob McDonnell, Chris Christie, and Scott Brown suggest that the voters are very open to new faces in the GOP; the usual Democratic attacks tying these guys to Bush proved pretty ineffective.

Plouffe continues, “If you put the GOP back in charge, lobbyists and huge corporate special interests will be back in the driver’s seat.” Yes, I know administration folks Tim Geithner and Larry Summers have done a bang-up job to stop those lobbyists and corporate interests, and the country faces the crisis of not having Chris Dodd running the Banking Committee. It’s frightening to think we might have special interests in charge, instead of our current situation, where Congress is seriously considering a special tax that would only apply to workers who aren’t union members.

“The Republicans will suggest they have changed their spots, but the GOP cannot hold a candle to us on reform issues.” He says this as part of an effort to save the seats and protect the reputations of John Murtha, Alan Mollohan, Paul Kanjorski, Jim Moran, Charles Rangel, and who knows who else that will get caught with their hands in the cookie jar between now and Election Day. Until recently, this list included Chris Dodd and Roland Burris. This is after the Louisiana Purchase and the Nebraska deal, and after the White House claimed amnesia on then-candidate Obama’s pledges about holding negotiations on C-SPAN. Our ambassador corps is still filled with the party’s most generous donors, often with no diplomatic experience.

“Democratic candidates must do everything well.” Okay, give them credit, they have quite a bit to work with on the campaign trail. They’ve got the casual, laid-back charm of Barbara Boxer in California; the even-tempered verbal delicacy of Jim Moran in Virginia; the raw, energetic charisma of Michael Bennet in Colorado; the warm, confidence-inspiring leadership of Harry Reid in Nevada; the cutting-edge style and deeply-held principles of Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, the common people’s touch of Baron Hill in Indiana, the dedication to state values and views of Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas; and the even-tempered, sensible rhetoric of Alan Grayson. Plouffe’s right, it’s hard to see a crew like this making a mistake on the campaign trail and seeming out of touch with their constituents.

The short message of the Plouffe op-ed? ‘We’re not doing anything wrong, other than hesitating on health care. We need to insist that we’ve created million of jobs, and then people will start to believe it, even if unemployment is high. We need to insist that stimulus funds were wisely spent, and that if we hadn’t passed it, America would look like “The Book of Eli”, even though our charts from early 2009 suggest we were just guessing about the stimulus’s job-creating abilities. When Americans complain we’re spending too much, say the Republicans are worse, even though we’re spending more than they did. Insist that we’re ethical, and ignore contrary evidence.’

I kept waiting for the paragraph that said, “This administration has done an exceptional job of analyzing terrorist-threat intelligence and ensuring that no al-Qaeda members get on planes bound for America, and we should make sure voters know about that.”