I agree with your post but not with Warner's and Bayh's choice of words. It still sounds like they're afraid of being Democrats. I'm tired of this "we need to move away from left-right and petty partisan". No we don't. The radical republicans are destroying the country. We being the opposition party, Democrats, our job is to stop that since we are the only alternative to wielding political power. When you appeal to the squishy middle, you implicitly say,
"It's OK to sit on the sidelines and not be political. Don't worry, just vote for us just this once and we promise you won't have to get politically active or actually align yourself with our party." F that. It's time for people to choose sides and take a page from George W. You're either with us or you're against us. Do you want more failed wars? Do you want $80 a barrel oil? Do you want your health insurance to always be something that can taken away at the drop of a hat? Do you want our roads, trains, and schools to continually be in disrepair so that Paris Hilton can get another tax break? Do you want us to continue to ignore global warming as hurricanes get worse and worse and ocean levels keep rising? Do you want our country to be hated and despised all around the world?

The center is dead. It's time for people to choose sides. Time for people to be citizens again.

Plain is misspelled.  It should be 'plane.'  I like the ideas, though!

Great comments!  I would only add that we must concentrate on the issues that make a difference in the daily lives of the majority.  We can't be hikjacked by the single issue groups.  If we can effectively sell ourselves as the party of the future, the single issues will take care of themselves.  The best example is the abortion issue; we've already won that issue, and the only way that it can be reveersed is by allowing this issue to cause us to turn on otherwise progressive candidates, thereby continuing to lose elections and allowing a republican president and congress to appoint right wing crazies to the courts.  There is no way that a democratic president and congress (even with a few dem. pro-lifers would have appointed Roberts or Alito.  We have solid majorities on social security, minimum wage, taxes, war, and almost all other issues.  We should ride these issues to a long term majority.  The more contentious issues like abortion, gay rights, etc. will take care of themselves with a progressive majority.

In a world where Evan Bayh is a man of the future, I am a gentoo penguin.

Fantastic post which I agree with 100%.  I have felt for a long time that the Dem party is not developing enough ideas to address the new problems that have arisen and I think this is one of the reasons we have been losing.  This is finally starting to change but it has been a long time coming.

I am all for preserving and protecting Social Security and Medicare.  They are great programs and have done a great deal to reduce poverty among seniors.  They should always be an important part of the Dem platform but they should not be the center piece anymore because there are many new problems which need to be addressed.  You mentioned a number of very important ones.  

Gary Hart is right that the world operates on a vertical plain and we have allowed the Repubs to position themselves as the party of new ideas for the future.  The Dems finally seem to be getting off the stick with ideas and solutions for the 21st Century while the Repubs cling to drilling in ANWR, etc.  This is a development that makes me very happy.

Could it be too early for dems to begin to attack "faith-based madness" and the worldwide bloodbath that is the result?  Rather than attempting to pander to the religious right, should dems not begin the criticism of what is patently the fundie desire for Christian superiority? Fundamentalist Christians, all their whining notwithstanding, have no desire for religious tolerance; rather, they seek dominance and as such should be seen in that light.