"Newt Gingrich took 50 seats in the Congress. You were in the White House at the time," Mr. Dean told ABC's "This Week," whose host, George Stephanopoulos, served as President Clinton's communications director. "How did [Mr. Gingrich] do it? He set a separate agenda for the Democrats, he used corruption at the top of the list, and he was able to pick up 50 seats."

I have no problem with a nationalized Congressional Campaign. I just think a Contract, which would list say 10 specific promises of legislation, is a very bad idea, for the following reasons:

• We don't copy what the Republicans do...at least not in such an exact fashion. That feeds the "All the parties are the same" thinking that hurts us long-term as a party.
• Its not clear the Contract won 1994. Its far more likely to me that people were punishing Congressional Dems for ethics, Democrats saw a President& Dem Congress pass NAFTA and fail on healthcare, and Clinton's 1993 economic legislation that was passed didn't quite have the economic impact yet.
• The Contract turned out to be more of a hassle for the GOP once in office as they were constantly measured against the promises in the Contract.
• It's bound to be a laundry list; too many issues for people to get emotionally attached to.
• By adopting a large list you are accepting the mantle of total government, for good and bad. That means the Democratic Congressional candidates will be challenged on what they would do in Iraq; how will they get gas prices down. But that's not realistic. The Bush Administration will still be in office if we take control of the House in 2006 - the Congress's role is to watchdog the adminstration and make sure THEY are doing their responsibilities, which they are failing at now.
• Its allowing voters to lead you rather than the other way around. It demeans you to say is all you are is 10 issues on a piece of paper. Voters hire these candidates for their leadership, for their reasoning ability, not just as a bunch of dolts who will vote the party line.
• Even if you debate all of the above, my big reason not to do a "Democratic Contract" is that the idea is out of the box WAY TOO EARLY IN THE GAME. You have already lost all of the surprise factor, the momentum factor. Why don't we just give the GOP a year to get ready for such an unveiling? And you've lost the expectations game: whatever it is, it won't be good enough for the press or even for Democratic partisans.

So what does the Underodog advise instead? Keep it simple. Keep it in the realm of what Congress does. The Congress spends the money, makes laws and oversees. Congress can't change the world. Bush will still be in office. What people will be deciding in large numbers is if they want a Congress that will watchdog what this unpopular tyrant is doing in the White House.

Rather than a Contract, I would stick with a more general "ABC" - A could be a specific policy plan - and I don't think there's room for more than one policy plan, and healthcare seems to biggest injustice and the uniting goal for Democrats. B is Oversight With Teeth on the Bush adminstration - that includes Iraq and Bush's harmful Domestic Policy which would wrap up gas prices. C is that we make the Congress one we can be proud of with meaningful ethics reforms and oh by the way, conducting ourselves in a way you will be proud of. (And I mean it, I don't want the end result of 2006 being that Pelosi becomes 'The Hammer', shaking down lobbyists the way Delay did.)

A simpler approach will surprise the media who expects a big heavy plan, make for easier campaigning, and most importantly make it easier to govern Congress once we get in.

"What Americans need to understand is that ... every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, and our tax cuts,"