So What's the Plan, Man?

Boston Herald columnist Michael Graham is all set to vote a straight Democratic ticket on November 7th if the DNC can answer one easy question:

But I think I must have missed a meeting or accidentally deleted an e-mail from Moveon.org, because I still haven’t seen the Democratic plan to fix Iraq and kick terrorist butt. Could someone please point me to the page of Time magazine’s recent “Barack For President” issue with the Democrats’ “How we defeat the woman-beating, homosexual-executing, book-burning, anti-Semitic, knuckle-dragging Islamists who want to kill us” bullet points? Thanks.

Wazzat? You can’t? Comrade, what do you mean there isn’t a Democratic strategy for terrorism? There’s gotta be. I mean - seriously - what kind of political party has no war plan at a time when we’re actively at war? When 135,000 troops are in the field, and where six weeks ago we foiled a plot to blow 10 American aircraft out of the sky?

Hello?

This is the part that the Democrats' cheerleaders in the mainstream press are soft-peddling in their glowing comparisons of the current political landscape to that of the early nineties. In 1994, when Republicans stormed Congress, Newt Gingrich and the party leaders had the famous "Contract With America," detailing, among other things, what they hoped to accomplish in the first hundred days of a Republican majority.

How does the Democratic Party plan to lead if the voters grant them majorities in the House and Senate?
Graham has a clue:

After all, the Democrats’ position on stopping terror can’t be to abandon democracy in Iraq, stop wiretapping, end coercive interrogation and reveal our secret tracking of terror money abroad in The New York Times. That’s crazy.

Yes, it is.

Graham's column is in sync with Jim Geraghty, one of the few people who called the 2004 Presidential election correctly, who also believes that the "security" vote is much more important than MSM analysts are letting on.