So let me explain my point above in more detail.  Leadership isn't just about fighting against the Republicans.  Leadership is about doing what is right and making choices that advance the cause, even if this requires reaching out across to people that one would normally not partner with, like Republicans.

The reaction against redistricting in California is an excellent example.  The summary of responses by Bagfly on the Common Cause site, quoted by MurshedZ here indicate the tendency toward reaction, rather than leadership.  (You'll have to find it, I don't know how to add the link.)  It is interesting to see that there are a collection of comments that basically state that Dems should not support this because we might hurt some of our incumbents.  If these incumbents are true leaders, they'll be fine.  

Redistricting is mandated by the Constitution because it is a good thing to help maintain representation.  Is redistricting controlled by political parties the best way to do this?  (Clearly not.  See Texas.)  Would Ds do better at this than Rs? (It is unlikely that Ds would redistrict any more fairly than Rs.)  Are split partisan panels effective at redistricting?  (No, they only serve to protect incumbents.) Are non-partisan panels a better alternative? (Yes)  Are districts based on geography generally better than what we have?  (Again, yes, if allowing for representation by ethnic minorities under the Voting Rights Act.)  The public can identify with their geography.  Being from Jackson, or Jackson County, or SW Ohio means something.  Being from the 12th Cong district doesn't.  Also a Congressman representing a geographic district, will, by the nature of the district, have to be more cognizant of all its members and their needs, rather than representing the radical views of a segment of society parcelled out in some convoluted district.  If the representative should hold a minority view on a subject, then it is his/her chance to truly educate the public on why it should change its mind.  In other words, the rep gets a chance to show his/her leadership.

So why do we not stand up for the right thing to do?  Non-partisan redistricting panels based on geography are more just for the public.  We should applaud this effort and TAKE the lead in it.

People respect clarity of vision, leadership, and character.  With all three, you'll go far, sometimes you can survive with two of the three.  Reagan had all three, and that is why people respected him so much, even if they disliked his politics.  Clinton (and W) had the first two and managed to use it successfully.  Bush 1 only had the latter and it cost him.  Carter had vision and character, but didn't have the leadership to overcome the hostage crisis or to bring the country on board to his moral accomplishments (the Canal Zone, for example).

Dems need to support ideas that are right and just.  Currently Bush is giving us lots of bad, unjust, and immoral initiatives that help us to do right.  (See social security, Iran, Iraq, health insurance, workers' rights...)  The problem is that Dems are not setting an agenda yet.  Hopefully Howard Dean will change this, but he has a lot of reactionary baggage to overcome.

Welfare reform was an unpopular initiative among the far left when it was pushed by Clinton.  While the goal of protecting the poor from starvation and squalor is absolutely correct, the system was not working and needed repair.  Clinton's leadership ethic allowed him to work with Rs and moderate Ds to accomplish this.  The key here though was that Clinton defined the agenda, not the Rs.

This is not to suggest that you can be above politics.  Far from it.  The public understands that politicians must play politics (see Reagan, above).  Leadership also requires doing the grunt work too.  The best leaders will roll up their sleeves and pitch in when needed.

Tax reform was very popular among Rs when W pushed it in his first 100 days.  The Dems, rightly, suggested that the reforms should go to the poor and middle class, suggesting a rebate that would jump start the economy.  W (or Rove) accepted that reform, included it, and then took the credit for it.  Daschle and Gephardt didn't have the leadership qualities necessary to balance W to share the credit.  Perhaps their failure was from poor planning, underestimating W, or not doing the grunt work of publicizing the Democratic position.

It's time that we Dems start talking about what we stand for, not what we are against.  It's time that we stand strong and take the correct positions, not just the expedient ones (a la Kerry, Gore, Gephardt, Daschle).  But it's time that we show America that we can accomplish things, that we have a plan that includes all Americans, and that we have moral clarity (we stand up for the poor, the working man, and a sustainable future).  We show America we can lead by promoting initiatives of our own, supporting good ideas of others (like CC's redistricting plan), and respectfully educating the public on the shortcomings of bad ideas from our competitors.

I think there is still a middle ground in America (as opposed to a thread dedicated to the disappearance of that demographic).  That middle ground is influenced by policy, but also by character and leadership.  That's why people vote for Evan Bayh in Ind, Fred Upton and Jennifer Granholm in Mich, Fritz Hollings in SC, and Jay Rockefeller in WV.  That middle ground recognizes, for example, that unions must be stronger to maintain health benefits and fight out-sourcing, but not so strong that management cannot adapt to the marketplace (see UAW late 1970s or govt workers unions in Puerto Rico now), that abortion should be legal, but practical (as opposed to ideological) efforts to curtail its use should be encouraged (such as lowering the cost of adoption and abstinence + contraception sex ed), or that we should increase efforts to preserve our natural resources, but that we cannot freeze development at its current level.

My challenge for the left-leaning blogosphere is this:
    Let's mature beyond the reactionary stage of the last 5 years and let's help our leaders not only by raising money and exposing fraud, but by serving as an example of leadership and developing just ideas that work for all of America.

PS:  Even now, can you believe that Bush got re-elected?  What a jackass!