Not exactly what he said, but exactly what he meant:
In his speech, Bayh said the party has focused most of its attention on the needs of lower-income Americans, but it also must address issues that matter to people on the next rung up the economic ladder.
"Without an agenda that speaks directly to the middle class and all who aspire to it, we will no longer be the party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Clinton. And we will not be a majority party," Bayh said, invoking the names of former Democratic presidents.
Raise your hand if you think that the Democratic Party has been too focused on the poor and working class. Anyone?
But it doesn't stop there:
To explain his point, Bayh called the party's economic proposals too narrow. He mentioned efforts to raise the minimum wage and a call by "my good friend" John Edwards - a potential Democratic presidential rival - to eliminate poverty. Bayh called the proposals well-intentioned and appropriate, but said they need to be part of a bigger agenda that directly affects the middle class.
I didn't expect much from Evan Bayh, but I didn't expect him to go Lieberman on the Democratic Party quite as soon as he did. Here he is, a few short months before the 2006 election, telling the electorate that the Democratic Party doesn't give a damn about the middle class - and dividing the middle class against the working class as he does it.
And who is there to cheer him on? Why, The National Review, of course! And I expect the rest of the wingnut pulpnet, as well as the corporate media, will follow their lead.
If you're like me, and you disagree with Bayh's assessment of the Democratic Party, tell him so at info@allamericapac.com: tell him that the Democratic Party is the party of both the working and the middle class, that their futures are one, and that his misguided and shortsighted triangulation is not the way to win your support for president - or anything else.
UPDATE: The full speech - props to NuevoLiberal.