The implication i get is that the Ds had won veto-proof majorities and still couldnt get 'er done. Of course they didnt have such a majority. This link does mention some accomplishments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/opinion/19mann.html

But expectations for seismic change in policymaking after the 2006 midterm elections were almost certainly too high, given the deep ideological differences between the parties, the Democrats’ narrow majorities, the now-routine Senate filibusters and a Republican president determined to go his own way on Iraq, the budget and domestic policy.

The new Democratic Congress delivered on the promise of ethics and lobbying reform, and made considerable progress in reining in earmarks, which had exploded under the previous 12 years of mostly Republican rule. In fact, between the 2006 and 2008 fiscal years, the cost of appropriations earmarks appears to have dropped from $29 billion to $14.1 billion. Perhaps most important, Congress reasserted itself as a rightful check on the executive branch, significantly stepping up its oversight on a wide range of important subjects.




>Now THAT is funny. The Democratic congress has accomplished absolutely nothing. Pelosi and her crew vowed to uphold a higher work ethic to work 5 day workweeks and do you remember how many vacation days they took right off the bat? How many 5 day workweeks are they scheduled to work in 2008? THREE
>
>>Ya, too bad the majority didn't win 7 years ago - we would have not been in this war in the first place.
>>
>>That's why there's a Democartic Congress today, and that's why there will be a Democratic
>>President come November.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I wouldn't be so sure about that, the majority of the US public had a chance 3+ years ago.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The majority of the US public hate this war and want out. It just goes to show how
>>>>far out of touch the GOP realy is.