(We are all children of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and to some extent, Lyndon Baines Johnson.  We have lost that perception in our society. Anyone who receives a social security check, anyone who went to college on the GI Bill, and anyone who has a school loan, federally backed mortgage, the list is endless.)

Someone paid for all those things.  The greatest generation, now passing, sacrificed to build a better world for its children.

Those that came after, and came of age in the 1950s and 1960s, were the richest generations.  All they are worried about is the estate tax, to ensure a future just for their own children in a world they are wrecking with their choice to spend on credit.

And the Democrats are in on the deal too, though on generational equity issues I blame the Republicans more, especially at the federal level.

My dad was born in 1926....2002, "the greatest generation now passing, sacrificed to build a better world for its children."

I had an "aha" moment when looking at the NY Times "portrait of the electorate" after the 1994 Congressional elections, when the Democrats lost congress.

Guess which generation was most likely to vote Republican that year?  The first half of the baby boom, those who came of age in the 1960s!

That's right, they were liberal in the 1960s when they wanted "free love."  But upon reasing age 35 to 45, with a mortgage payments and kids, they were more interested in preventing other people from living free off their tax dollars.

They'll be "liberal" again in a few years, or at least what liberal has deteriorated into.  They'll want to raise taxes to the moon (or slash other services like education while allowing the infrastructure to deteriorate) to make sure those unfunded social security and Medicare promises are kept, and luxury class nursing homes are created (their kids may not want to care for them after the divorce in their childhood).

And why are those social security promises unfunded?  Because by voting Republican, instead of using the higher payroll taxes collected since the "save social security" deal of 1983 to pay off the national debt, they've used the money for lower income taxes and higher spending on senior health care, and run up $billions of additional debt besides!  I'll be writing about this, probably next year when another year of data becomes available.

"I think if democrats trumpet the things they believe in, instead of sniveling apologetically, they will have a better chance."

Fair enough. As I said, I believe the that “America must lead the world by persuasion, not command”,  “that liberalism cannot merely define itself against the right, but must fervently oppose the totalitarianism that blighted Europe a half century ago, and which stalks the Islamic world today”,  “an unyielding hostility to totalitarianism – and a recognition that defeating it requires bringing hope to the bleakest corners of the globe. And it means understanding that democracy begins at home, in a nation that does more than merely preach about justice, but become more just itself (which would seem to encompass universal health care)” , “American greatness cannot simply be asserted; it must be proved….That American leadership is not American Empire” and “The replacement of containment by the Bush Doctrine of preventive war...has screwed everything up with illegitimacy, tactical blunders, and utopian fantasy".

As to gays in the military; every days it seems like I read that the army has lost one more gay Arab speaking interpreter because someone asked and told. Gays in the military has become a national security priority! 

Not you say that you were snivelling, or embarassed about your beliefs.  Rather that you think I ought to snivel and be embarassed about MY beliefs in order to win some elections.  If I thought your analysis of the election strategy was right, and I used to, I would be more open to sitting down and shutting up.  If the middle is where you live, more power to you; it's not where I live, and I no longer believe that pretending that I and other registered democrats live there is going to help the party. 

Those things you said in your post, Gatemouth, I can get behind them.  I think the party should salute the flag, I think we should oppose totalitarianism, etc etc.  But I am not a moderate.  If this list of stuff can cover both clinton new-democrats and an unreconstructed social democrat such as myself, might it not also cover a moderate republican?  Up with good things, down with bad things.  Our Democratic Party stands for all that is right and true.

 On the other hand, Truth, Justice and the American Way is perhaps not a bad slogan for us this year.

The Democrats have lost because the Republicans appealed to the self-interest of the baby boomers.  The Democrats may gain because the means by which they screw future generations may shift to a more pro-government stance as they age.

There are two things going on, in my view.  "People like us" vs. "people like them" politics and money.  My point is don't discount the latter.

I think you begin with some reasonable statements: namely the denegration of Bill Clinton by some on the left is preposterous. But you end up far, far off base, painting caricaures of liberals that are meaningless and referring to people pushing the Democrats "further to the left."

Further to the left of WHAT? There is no left in the US. Both parties are so far to the right that many of Nixon's policies resemble those of Democrats today. You are right that the condemnation of the moderates by liberals is a mistake. But you compound the mistake by being equally foolish in your view of liberals.

Is Dean (pro-gun and pro-balanced budget) one of these foolish liberals to you? Funny how these misguided liberals look to a pro-gun, pro-balanced budget populist for their leadership. And once he is in charge of the DNC what does he do: an excellent job! Am I one of those foolish liberals? I sure support taking the party and the nation more to the left, though I am an avid fan of Bill Clinton, Al Gore and I am solidly pro-Israel.

 Your caricature of liberals is as foolish as the Greens' caricatures of Democrats. As for Hillary, I think many more people simply think she has no shot at winning the general election. Plus what real LEADERSHIP has she shown. I have spent more time defending Hillary than attacking her, but she has not been a leader. I want to see a real leader head the Democrats...and I have yet to be convinced by any of them.

Look to Montana for a  sense of what wins: populism. Populist Democrats are the winners these days. Sometimes populism is liberal, sometimes moderate. But it sure seems in fashion now. Hillary is not a populist. Nor are many who are more liberal than she is.

The problem with this post, Gatemouth, is that when you define Democratic politics in terms of a need to stand up against "Michael Moore Democrats," you're arguing against a straw man. I don't think that there's any real constituency in the Democratic party that believes that "we should not lead, and when we do, we are invariably a force of evil."  I mean, seriously, identify it, please!  The great thing about blogging is that it's very easy to cite sources with links; link to some people who can be reasonably said to represent an anti-leadership element in the Democratic party, and who furthermore are so powerful that you could reasonably say that they are contending for the soul of the party.  You have four examples: Michael Moore, Cynthia McKinney, Jonathan Tasini, and Chris Owens (and it's not really clear what his sin was, given that the comments that seem to have stoked your ire were about Israel and Lebanon, not the U.S.).  Do you really think that these four people, three of whom hold no political office (and the one who does is on her way out), constitute a big, nefarious movement?

No, virtually all Democrats believe that the U.S. needs to take the lead in the struggle to make the world safe from terror and end Islamic extremism.  The question, though, is how the U.S. should lead, and that's centered around Iraq.  The people who fought so hard for Lamont in Connecticut believe that our choice to go into Iraq was a disaster, and that you could tell from the beginning that it was going to be a disaster; we believe that it didn't fit with any of the principles for liberal leadership in foreign affairs that Beinart outlined in his recent book.  We believe that the Republican party has failed the country in Iraq and in the broader war on terror, and furthermore, we want to step up and say that we believe that.  We want to make foreign policy a Democratic campaign issue, and we think we can win with it.  When virtually every poll shows Democrats leading Republicans on Iraq, and some polling (notably the Washington Post's polls) has started to show us leading on terrorism, I don't see why this should be so controversial.

On the other side are pundits like Peter Beinart, and, apparently, yourself.  Most of these pundits supported the Iraq war when it started.  Now, most have them have been forced to admit that starting that war was a terrible mistake.  But even though they've had to make that admission (they would look pretty crazy if they didn't), they haven't really taken it in yet.  Their politics now seem to be based on a desire to avoid admitting that those of us who opposed the war from the beginning were right, and they were wrong.  Supporting politicians like Ned Lamont, who want to make the disastrous Republican mangling of national security issues into a Democratic campaign issue, would force these formerly pro-war pundits to eat crow in the most ambiguous way, for they themselves were cheerleaders for said mangling.  So they end up supporting Lieberman in Connecticut, even though he's essentially become a Bush surrogate on the war, for stupid reasons like "Lamont's not serious about terrorism" (where apparently "being serious" is defined as "agreeing with Bush") or the one you give above--that it'll make it easier for Republicans to portray Democrats as weak.  Well, if your response to the other side portraying you in an unfavorable light is to do exactly what the other side says, rather than fighting back, you have no business being involved in politics.

The bottom line is that no one is going to vote for Democrats if Democrats keep being Republican-lite on foreign policy.  The Democrats need to go on the offensive on foreign policy--they need to tell the country that the Republicans have screwed up at every turn, and that the Democrats will do better.  Lamont's victory is the first step in that direction.  Peter Beinart, Thomas Friedman, and their ilk need to remember that George Bush and his administration are the ones who have run our foreign policy into a ditch, not Michael Moore, and start figuring out ways to take the political fight to them--even if it means admitting to themselves how badly they screwed up when they were cheerleaders for Iraq three years ago.