Back in November, I attended my state party's main celebration for campaigns and volunteers. We sat at tables in a large room trying to watch a projection from a bad angle while we listened to rumors. For most of the campaign, those of us who really cared were cautious when we talked about what a Democratic Majority could do. In the back of my mind, I remembered the last six years of the Clinton Administration.

After predictions of doom and gloom as the new Republican Majority took power in 1994, fewer bad things happened than expected. This was due to the power of the Presidency. During the 1996 election cycle, a lot of Democrats I knew were considering defecting to a third party candidate. I was bored with politics and considered not voting at all. This changed when a friend of mine let me borrow a book written by James Carville. The title was We Win, They Lose with some sort of subtitle.

I was feeling cynical when I started reading it. After all, I was well to the left of President Clinton on all sorts of issues. Why the hell should I support someone who was in favor of school uniforms?!?! I started reading and saw that some of these positions to my right had some merit. Others were tolerable because they were used to promote goals a center left person like me backed wholeheartedly. In the case of school uniforms, they cost less for the average parent because they stop the "bidding wars" to see who was most fashionable.

I read on and reached the most important section of all. It was a list of laws that would have been on the books with President Clinton there to veto them. This is where I'm going to make my point. The Republican Majority could not force its agenda wholesale because the Presidency is so powerful. We need to give the New Majority a break because even a lame duck like Bush can stop an agenda.

There are polls indicating that people are disappointed with the New Majority and there are some ways in which they have disappointed me. On the other hand, they have the power to stop things from getting worse and they have used that power. This negative power is difficult to see because it is used in committees. Democratic majorities on committees can prevent Bush's nasty ideas from ever making it out in the open.

I am disappointed that the Iraq supplemental bill was passed without a withdrawal deadline. The other side of the coin is that we Democrats are not yet united on what withdrawal will mean. Some believe it should mean withdrawing most of the troops while leaving a small number to train Iraqi police and army units. Others believe that all the troops should be withdrawn because we're accomplishing nothing with a large number of troops so a small number would be even less effective. While my opinion counts for nothing, I believe we should withdraw all the troops to a friendly country. From a forward base in a friendly country, we could make raids against any real Al-Q bases as opposed to those who just use the name for its anti-American ties.

Let's get united behind one approach and then we'll pass a series of bills in an election year. With the Republican candidates begging Bush to take the issue away, some sort of withdrawal bill might even pass. If not, we can have a Democratic Congress pass a bill that can be signed by a Democratic President. That bill will specify that we are withdrawing forces so that we can attack our real enemy. That's something I believe the vast majority of Americans will support and take the edge off any "knife in the back" stories.