By standing in vague but passionate opposition to the president's handling of the war, they formed a new voting alliance - an alliance between doves, who think Iraq was a mistake to begin with, and one-time hawks who think Iraq was a perfectly fine thing to do in the first place, but that it's a huge mess now and Bush should pay.
Going for that anti-Iraq alliance without offering an escape plan of their own was a brilliant political tactic.
I know several of those "one-time hawks" - GOP - who think Iraq is a big mess and were not enthused at all to vote for GOP candidates. Not voting or voting for Democrats was the way many former Bush supporters meted out their disappointment in the way things are going in Iraq (or at least in the way the MSM portrays how things are going in Iraq).
We had the Senate and the House, but we didn't use the power and it was taken from us.
The problem is that too much of the general population is too easily swayed by the media hammering them with negative news and opinions on the war.
Right after 9/11 we were shaken out of complacency.
Years later we seem to have forgotten that many things that are worth doing and must be done aren't quick or easy.
We're in a war. Our enemy is throwing a great deal of resources at us and aren't fighting by the rules of war.
Of course there are casualties. Of course it's a hard fight. Of course there are risks.
However, no one is presenting a better overall plan than the president. They are just attacking his efforts without a real plan of their own.
The only other plan being offered is appeasement, and history has clearly shown time and time again that doesn't solve problems, it makes them worse over the long run.
It wasn't so "brilliant": It's the standard schitzophrenia of the Democratic party. This, if you remember, was the party that embraced both MLK, Jr. and George Wallace.
I've a feeling women who once voted for Republicans, voted for Dems overwhelmingly this time. Hope to see a breakdown soon on this.