The "political equivalent of a wine cooler" ??

What do you think of this article? Do you think it is a little harsh on the Democratic Party?
==========================================

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-foster-altschul/why-the-democrats-arent-_b_25469.html

<snip>
Well, it's beginning to look a lot like an election year - which means the Republicans are busy smearing and bullying and sharpening their knives, and the Democrats are busy whimpering and retreating and straightening their hair. With just over three months until the mid-terms - and the last chance for voters to provide some kind of counterbalance to the criminal and disastrous Bush Administration - it's remarkable how much this year already looks like 2004.
And 2002. And 2000.

Despite the howls of voters for more aggressive and cohesive policy initiatives, for more muscular critiques of the administration and the Republican-controlled congress, one is hard pressed to find a pulse in the Democratic Party, which apparently has not yet addressed its addiction to focus groups, play-it-safe political consultants, and apologize-and-retreat campaign strategies. As in election years past, they are relaxing on the 9th hole, or at the beach, certain that voters will choose Democrats simply because they aren't Republicans. The incumbents are so vulnerable, this reasoning goes, so damaged by scandal and failure and rebukes from the Supreme Court and indictments from grand juries, that no sane, intelligent person will vote for them. Why turn voters off, then, by being partisan or nasty or taking positions which some might not agree with? Why not provide a friendlier alternative, something that goes down smooth, the political equivalent of a wine cooler?

<snip>
Last week, I thought I saw a glimmer of hope. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, headed by Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, posted an Internet ad which linked images of gross pollution, skyrocketing gas prices, Tom DeLay's mugshot, and flag-draped coffins of Americans killed in Iraq, with a critique of Bush policies. A fairly mild ad, as full-contact politics goes, it nevertheless prompted immediate howls and denunciations from Republicans, who objected to the use of the coffin images for political advantage.

Let's forget, for a moment, that it is only in the past three years that displaying flag-draped coffins has been considered a no-no. (Past Presidents have considered it a way to honor the dead; but then again, past Presidents have bothered to attend the military funerals of the soldiers who have died defending their policies.) And let's even forget the shameless, relentless way in which Republicans have inundated voters with images of the World Trade Center tragedy in every campaign season since 2001. The question remains: What is the problem? Is there something dishonest here? No, soldiers have really died in Iraq. Lots of them. Is it irrelevant to politics? No, Bush began this war, and has stupidly insisted on "staying the course," despite pleas from Democrats, allies, and the entire world community. For three years he has mocked, smeared, and ignored everyone who has suggested any other approach - why on earth should the tragic results of his errors be off-limits in a political campaign?

....more

and until those spineless wimps give people a clear alternative, "gee we're not Repugs" is just not going to get people off the sofa and to the polls.

They need to get aggressive and HAMMER the pugs on the war and the economy, especially on WAGES. They've got to IGNORE all the sliming from the right wing and hammer them hard on kitchen table issues and the right wing's history of LYING to EVERYONE about EVERYTHING.

If they don't do that, it will be a repeat of 2000, 2002 and 2004, guaranteed.