Winning the White House? History's Against Them.

The Internet makes it easier than ever to raise fast money on single-issue passions, such as former governor Howard Dean's opposition to the war in Iraq in 2003. But the strong positions that fire up activists may make it harder to build a bigger tent later. Democrats, therefore, must distinguish between expressing their desire to end the war and playing down the fight against terrorism. Dean's presidential candidacy provides a cautionary example. The money and passion that won him the support of 30 percent of the Democrats could never have gotten him to 50 percent of the whole electorate.

If Iraq is a detour, diversion or distraction, then what path should Democrats be following? Is "out of Iraq" a cover for freeing up money for domestic spending or an argument for finishing the job in Afghanistan? Democrats cannot argue that money saved by pulling out should fund domestic programs without restoring their reputation as indifferent to national security.

· Use hearings to restore confidence in government, not to attack Republicans.

Democrats can now use hearings to expose sweetheart deals in Iraq and the Department of Homeland Security, hordes of incompetent appointees, the role of Halliburton and other favored beneficiaries of "privatization" policies, drug prices and Vice President Cheney's energy task force.

They can bottle up extreme judicial nominees and they can publicize regulatory misdeeds. But such rebuffs of Republican excess will not demonstrate that Democrats can govern competently.

Too much emphasis on the negative makes Democrats look as though they care more about bringing down the GOP than making government serve ordinary people. And investigations without solutions risk generating an indictment of government itself. According to the Democracy Corps Poll last month, Americans consider government waste and inefficiency a bigger problem than they do misplaced spending priorities or the wealthy not paying enough taxes. If Democrats want to create new programs for health or education, they must convince people that they are restoring the basic competence of government.

How do you expose incompetent officials, second-rate appointments and poorly armed troops, then ask everyone to trust the same government to provide health care at a lower cost than in the current system? If everything Bush and Karl Rove touch has turned to dross, why throw good money after bad? Nothing will hurt the GOP more than a Democratic Party that fixes government, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the broken military hospital system.

Diplomats say you should always know before a summit what its practical outcome will be. The same should be true of every congressional hearing.

Committee chairmen should be able to show beforehand just how their hearings will benefit regular people by improving government performance.

· Win veto battles with insurance programs.

Divided government can help presidents look moderate and the party controlling Congress look extreme. Because Democrats control the agenda, they will bring up bills they want, and bottle up bills favored by the Republican right. Bush and the GOP are now likely to be defined by which Democratic bills he signs and which he vetoes, instead of by the bills advanced from his right wing.

The critical strategic decision is choosing which of the president's programs to challenge, so that his vetoes make Republicans look extreme and Democrats sensible. One lesson from past veto battles is clear: Democrats win showdowns with Republicans when they stand up for insurance programs such as Social Security against tax cuts. Democrats lose veto battles when they push for redistribution programs that do not resonate with middle-class attitudes regarding work, inequality and government competence.