I was going to blog about the first story I am going to mention here a day ago but I didnt get the chance. Ill start with a quote:
NYT - Some Democrats are Sensing Missed Opportunities

"We're selling our party short; you've got to stand for a lot more than just blasting the other side," said Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee. "The country is wide open to hear some alternatives, but I don't think it's wide open to all these criticisms. I am sitting here and getting all my e-mail about the things we are supposed to say about the president's speech, but it's extremely light on ideas. It's like, 'We're for jobs and we're for America.' "

To a certain extent, the frustrations afflicting Democrats are typical for a party out of power. In Congress, the Democrats have become largely marginalized by the Republican majority, depriving them of a ready platform either to make attacks or offer their own ideas. Presidential campaigns typically produce prominent party leaders, followed around the country by a cluster of reporters and television crews, but that is at least two years away.

Yet in many ways, the Democratic Party's problems seem particularly tangled today, a source of frustration to Democratic leaders as they have watched opinion polls indicating that the public is souring on the Republican Party and receptive to Democratic leadership.

And the problems are besetting Democrats at a pivotal moment, as they struggle to adapt to a shifting American political landscape, and a concerted effort by this White House to make permanent inroads among once traditional Democratic voters.

The Bottom Line is that the Democrats seem to have an opening right now. The Republicans have been in power now for a couple of years and they are starting to get ugly with their power. People are starting to think that there could be better things happening based on the fact that the majority of the country believes that we as a whole are moving in the right direction. It seems pretty clear to me that Democrats could easily have the upper hand on domestic issues if they just had policies out there. Health care is a huge issue for a lot of people and we must as a party re-visit again. Energy independence as I mention day after is a vitally important issue that can be tied to a very well to the issues of national security and keeping America strong for the future. If we can present something real in convincing tersm then we have something very serious to go with. On Social Security -- there clearly needs to be reform and as the people that created it -- we should work hard to create a plan that makes sense and lasts into the future. Democrats can put these policies together -- and can stand together on these policies but they have to think smart. We must be smart and implement this on all levels and just not run on a party of saying no to others. We must offer something better -- that is our obligation.

I think that Democrats have a serious gap on foreign policy. I think on some issues democrats and republicans stand on somewhat of the same territory. However, there are many issues, especially the issue of overall strategy which has never really been laid own by democrats. We essentially need a policy that says we are not pussies and that can be marketed that way but works on all levels as well. The democrats could run on these issues with domestic issues and be really strong but they just arent doing it. We are barely behind in polls discussing national security and we just have to have something smart and substantive to say back that fits into a larger theme. We just better do it. The Northeastern University College Democrats are going to work towards doing it and the national party better as well.

One other item. I have participated in what is below in the past but it really isnt where we should focus our energy because it is ultimately BS and contributes to people seeing the democrats as weak on defense and other issues. We need to take these issues back and we need to be serious. This is what we can't really do anymore:
How Liberals Play Into Karl Rove's Hands - TNR

The point is bigger than just one gathering at a liberal organization. In the years since September 11, many liberals seem to have concluded that you're not really opposing Bush's means unless you also scorn his stated ends. That's too bad. Liberals have no chance of winning the national security debate if they dismiss its premises. I think most liberals recognize this, but some are so disgusted with the current administration that they feel compelled to oppose--and to mock--anything with Bush's name on it. And any Democrats, like Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, who oppose the Bush administration yet decline to scoff at the notion that America ought to stand for the spread of human freedom are liable to be labeled weak, neoconservative, or traitorous to their own cause.

This only stifles the possibility of a serious liberal alternative to Bush's policies. As long as Democrats are required by their base to ridicule Bush's ends rather than his means, they will have lost the debate over foreign policy before it even starts. Indeed, despite the unpopularity of the Iraq war, recent polling shows that Americans still trust Republicans more than Democrats on national security.

We have to do better.