Drove me crazy. What was more important than being right, after all? Especially when my siblings were so clearly, so obviously wrong?

As it happens, my being right never persuaded my siblings when we were in the midst of a screaming match, and as I recall, the more I insisted on my rightness, the angrier and more intransigent my brother and sisters became. Herein lies the challenge for Democratic candidates running right now.

It turns out that Democrats—or at least those few with the courage to speak out—have been proved right about most of the pressing issues currently facing the nation. Run down the litany: Right about global warming; right about the failure to plan for the war in Iraq; right about how the deficit would balloon with a combination of huge tax cuts and a never-ending bill for Iraq; right about the dangers of letting theology rather than science drive decision-making. And on the list could go.

But as my mother will happily remind them, being right is not enough to win the upcoming elections. Voters, no less than my siblings, do not want to hear how wrong they were to have voted for this administration and its congressional enablers.

Nor will it do, I suspect, simply to blame the president for all his wrongness and wrongheadedness. His poll numbers are historically low, to be sure, but neither the press nor the American people have shown yet that they hold him personally responsible for all his self-evident failures. Many Americans still buy the folksy, aw shucks act, and going after him isn't likely to win many votes.

Instead, Democrats need to capitalize on the meltdown by pointing their collective finger at Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove—the Darth Vader, Mad Bomber and Cardinal Richelieu of this administration. Making these three the Mount Rushmore embodiment of this administration carries almost no political risk for Democrats. Polls show that these three have even less support than Bush, and what's more, no one actually likes them.

Further, each of these three richly deserves any and all of the blame that can be heaped upon them: Cheney for the lies that got us into this war; Rumsfeld for its inept prosecution; Rove for the corrosive culture of deceit, distortion and partisanship that defines this White House.

So Democrats, whether running for the House or Senate, need to make this election a referendum on this Gang of Three. Repeated and focused critique of the performance of these three will certainly motivate the Democratic base while boxing Republicans into an indefensible corner. It's hard to imagine any Republican in a stiff campaign battle standing up to defend Karl Rove or Dick Cheney.

For Democratic candidates the exchanges should go something like this:

How do we do better in Iraq? By getting rid of Rumsfeld, giving someone else a try.

How do we address global warming? By getting rid of Cheney, who has consistently thwarted any attempt to make us less oil-dependent.

How do we restore faith in government? By getting rid of Rove, who has raised dirty tricks to a high art.

The overarching question for any Republican congressional incumbent is simply this: Why didn't you stand up against Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove? The question applies equally to high-profile senators like Rick Santorum and Mike DeWine and obscure House members from out-of-the-way districts. They have all failed in their most basic Constitutional responsibility to check the power of an administration out of control.

Democrats can take some measure of satisfaction in knowing we were right all along. But "I Told You So" won't make an effective campaign slogan.

Steve Conn teaches history at Ohio State University and is the author most recently of Metropolitan Philadelphia: Living with the Presence of the Past (UPenn Press).