Medary.com

Or, more specifically, the lack thereof.

First, Michael Barone, writing at RealClearPolitics:

Their pit bull attacks on Bush, their constant references to the Abu Ghraib abuses as if they were typical, their opposition to letting the NSA listen to conversations from al-Qaida suspects to persons in the United States and to letting interrogators of unlawful combatants use techniques that have helped us foil those plotting violence against us -- these amount to a strategy of rule or ruin. You must let us rule this country, or we won't regard it as "our" country anymore. So much for the first person plural.

Next, writing in the Washington Post, Sebastian Mallaby:

I'm not saying that Republicans are at all better, and of course elections breed some policy timidity. But the infuriating thing about the Democrats is that, just a decade ago, they knew how to empathize with voters' economic insecurities without collapsing into irresponsibility; they combined attractively progressive social policies with sensible pro-market fiscal responsibility. Now many in the party have lost interest in this necessary balance. If the Democrats win a measure of power next month, it's hard to see what they will do with it.

Hat tip:  Instapundit.

We're all quite well aware (painfully, tediously aware, reminded day after day, hour after hour) of what Democrats are against.  What are you for, other than raw political power?