No way. First, most people aren't paying enough attention to have had enough or even be particularly aware of what's bad that's going on. But more importantly, simply being "not the Republicans" won't win, build even short-term party loyalty let alone long-term.

We need to tell people about a better world they can live in and how we'll make it happen, not simply be less corrupt and less greedy than the other guys. Most people think all politicians are corrupt and greedy, anyway, so they might as well vote for the ones who stand for something and sometimes make it sound good.

Well, I certainly suspect you're right that most people aren't paying enough attention to get the slogan.

It's sort of the type of thing that sounds really good to the 0.00001% of people paying 100% attention. Always have to remember that's the tiny minority.

Any ideas on slogans or even phrases that don't quite rise to the level of "slogan" to use to communicate these things?

My friend Adam suggested "Vote Democrat. Or Dick Cheney will shoot you." That made me laugh.

I think the crux of the problem is that there's just not a slogan that will work to communicate Democratic values. Slogans, by their very nature, simplify issues and ideologies. What Democrats need is a more complex public engagement with politics. We need voters to think longer and harder and to ask more difficult questions of themselves and of politicians. Unfortunately, those are not exactly the dominating themes of public discourse.

I like the Cheney slogan though. I also like the bumper sticker I saw recently that said, "If you voted for Bush, the yellow ribbon on your car doesn't make up for it."

I saw another good bumper sticker this week:
The Bush Legacy: No Child Left a Dime.

In a way I agree with Jen--the issues are too huge and complex to reduce to a slogan. But, that said, we have to try our best, because catchy slogans work! And "Had Enough?" does cover it all....

It's tempting to think that if we can just get people really pay attention so we can say more than just a soundbite, then everyone will obviously go our way. But I don't think that's really how the world works.

Paul Begala likes to tell a story (repeated here) about how John 3:16 boils down the entirety of the Christian faith to 4, maybe 5 seconds.

The importance of the soundbite has been known for millenia.

Now, I doubt that we can actually boil down Democratic politics to 10 words. (Although that won't stop Tom Vilsack from trying.) But I do see the value in trying to come up with slogans and phrases that can help get us there.

The problem you'll always run into as a Democrat is that liberal folks in certain areas (NE, east coast, PNW, etc.) will love your slogan, because they'll get it. But the Nascar folks will scratch their heads and say "wha?".

This is a big country, and you'll never come up with one slogan (or campaign theme, for that matter) to satisfy everybody. It's like expecting everybody to buy the same pair of jeans.

Instead, market different ideas to different people. The advertising industry has done this correctly for decades now, but you politicos haven't caught on yet. In liberal places, "Had enough? Vote Democrat" just might work. But in Nascar country, where there simply isn't as much angst built up concerning W, something more proactive might be better. Something more blunt, like "We're not safer. Vote Democrat.", or "Bring Them Home. Vote Democrat."

The basic idea is that you'll never come up with a single slogan, stump speech or strategery to work for everyone, just as you'll never come up with a pair of jeans that fits everyone. You need to market your ideas differently to different people. The Republicans do this already: Identify your target market (liberal elite, Nascar people, old people, soccer moms) and then target your strategery to them. In the end, you'll have ten slogans, not just one, each more accurate than any single one you can think of. It's the smart bomb version of politicking.

As an aside, and I say this with all due respect: The Democrats need to understand that this whole thing is going to, once again, come down to a matter of personality. I don't think that's fair, but that's just how it is. We need to shape an image of the guy we want, and THEN shape the ideas around that image, not the other way around.

Certainly slogans are necessary and useful, given the current structure of political campaigns in the US. (I'd like to see a very different kind of public discourse about politics and government but hey, love the one you're with, right?)

John 3:16 is a beautiful example of a tightly focused message that exemplifies a much more complex doctrine. But I don't think voters will be moved by a Democratic John 3:16, because I think the core values of the Democratic party don't resonate with Americans who vote scared or vote selfish and have little or no understanding of the issues. We could give them a stunning articulation of our values, and they would vote against it.

I think Joe is right that our best hope is a candidate whose personality transcends the party. It would possibly also help if Dick Cheney kept shooting people.

Joe's right, as usual. In fact, the Republicans actually did such regional marketing in the 2004 election, largely under the radar of coastal liberal strategists, by renting Clear Channel highway billboards in the South, Midwest, and Great Plains states. The short, clever messages were billboard-only, not used in TV or radio spots, so the Democrats either wouldn't notice them or wouldn't care to muster direct responses to them.

And then there's the GOP's massive PDA-armed grassroots movement, going door-to-door to show each voter a selection of videos customized to his or her key issues. Talk about marketing different ideas to different people.

They've done a much better job of customizing the message, both regionally and individually, than the Democrats. I suppose it only makes sense that the party supported by all the corporations would also make the best use of the corporate engine's wealth of advanced marketing techniques.

The challenge for Democrats is not unlike the difficulties a startup venture faces in taking down a Goliath market leader like Microsoft. One way to win is to target a niche of the market, capture it, form a beachhead there, then proceed to conquor the next market segment, and so on, until you've won it all. I'm not sure that works so well in politics, but it's worth some thought.

I like "Had Enough? Vote Democrat." And I live in an area that generally votes democrat but also has a lot of retirees who might have voted Republican last time but might be fed enough to switch.
At least that what it seems to me, although I'm certainly not an analyist or pollster and I could be wrong.