Probably too late for that though.

Thanks for posting that.  

And this is forever worth remembering

"[U]nity" is the wrong goal. Let me suggest that what we want instead is "solidarity".

Unity in the end isn't democratic, it is fascist, especially if it requires uniting around oppressive or inequitable or unjust positions. The desire to feel strength in the power of numbers is, I'd suggest a cowardly one. To have everyone accept your tenets, your definitions, your values and your policies is a recipe for stagnation.

I don't want to unite with the kind of people I observed at DKos this past year, whether they call themselves progressives, liberals, democrats, or anything else.

The idea of "solidarity" implies that there is a common "ideal" that disparate members of a group can seek.  FDR's consistent objective(s) was(were). . . ?

Perhaps my pessimism, skepticism, cynicism block my own views of things, but I don't see the shining beacon on the hill that will bring some semblance of solidarity to the remains of what used to be the Democratic Party.

Can you show some concept that will bring a Roman Catholic who views abortion as murder & an atheist who sees it as a tissue removal into some form of solidarity "for" or "in favor of" anything?

But the question for many of us remains: how much solidarity might we be able to develop with a movement like Obama's that seems built on divisiveness, smear tactics, and clear condescension toward others unlike them?

Yes, there will be common ground with that movement and his leader on a number of policy issues. But do those override in fundamental importance and ultimate impact the basic differences about what the movement stands for in terms of its fundamental motivations, types of behaviors it countenances, and the kind of impact it actually has in the real political world?

Look, the Obama movement has clearly engendered a degree of divisiveness far exceeding anything many of us have seen in our lifetimes. How can that end well? Even if Obama became President, how could he retain his clout in the face of so much inherent dislike in large segments of the American people toward what he stands for? How does such a political leader suddenly transform himself into someone genuinely capable of reaching out to, say, the working class voter, without condescension?

In brief, does the short term policy gain one might get from an Obama Presidency outweigh the long terms deficits he represents in terms of the image he projects of the Democratic Party? If he is as President anything like what he's been as candidate, doesn't he define the Democratic Party precisely in the way that so many of us have fought for years to counteract: that it is elitist and patronizing and holier than thou?

Solidarity yes, but with what?  Bipartisanship to the point of capitulation?   Solidarity with a party that excludes large swaths of the historical Democratic base?  Solidarity with a campaign that diverted the agenda from a Democratic agenda to one of a person/icon and a concept of "change" equal to the "war on terror" abstraction?  

But to me the term solidarity evokes the Civil Rights Movement or the 60's Anti-War Movement.  In both cases people who came from different sides of the political aisle, different religions, different cultures, and different beliefs for a common overarching goal.  They were there to support each other moving towards a common goal.  The differences didn't matter because they were trying to achieve an overarching goal that didn't require giving up the differences.

I have never been naive enough to think that any politician or party would actually represent me in all the areas that I wanted.  I never thought that politicians would be above being politicians. I did believe that there were at least a couple of areas that the Democratic Party were rock solid on.

If the party will not stand firm on upholding the rule of law or protecting the Constitutional rights of its citizens, what will it stand for?  These are not small negotiable items IMO.

The party leadership that in 2005 stood firm against the Republican mantra that Social Security was in crisis made the  decision to firmly back the candidate that adopted the same Republican mantra. Can I now trust this party and its leadership to protect Social Security? Has this issue now been removed as a core value of the Democratic Party? I always thought that at least on this issue I could trust the party. Now I'm not so sure.

But the Obama movement/New Democratic Party, whatever you want to call it, is so empty to me.  I don't understand what its goal is, other than power for itself.  Everything that it professes to be, all this new politics post-partisan unity garbage, strikes me as a hypocritical con.  So what is left?  What are they fighting for, other than power?  It sure ain't unity.  And I don't want unity anyway.  So, once again, do they share my overall goals, and merely disagree about method or messenger?  Beating Bush is not sufficient for me to join in solidarity.  I need more.  I want a positive goal.  Not a negative one.  So what are we fighting for?  The common man?  Obama doesn't seem interested.  Realizing equality at last?  He tells me the old battles are over.   Justice?  Freedom?  He rates an incomplete on these.

I remember reading a post on Open Left.  Can't remember who wrote it but it was about the new progressives.  I was floored. I didn't fit in with any of those new tenets and I have been a Democrat, almost Yellow Dog, my entire life.

I came away knowing I was not a progressive when I read that. I am a plain old Democrat. I guess the kind the party no longer needs.

I would be joyful to achieve solidarity other than anyone but.  Seriously. I worked for the party, donate, canvass, call, write, etc....

I will admit that I would accept some tweaking here and there;  defense, affirmative action ..not much though. And if I am willing, how is he going to do it?  How far to the right will he go? What's his middle? How much of a change in the Democratic Party is he talking about?

Everything Obama has ever done has been about pursuit of power for himself. He doesn't give a damn about "progressive" politics except to the extent they help him gain Power. But when the time comes, these "progressives" will find themselves joining his other former allies, mentors, and the like under the bus. Let's face it, you are dealing with a guy who, while a member of a militant African American congregation, went out of his way to trade favors with slumlords who exploited the very same African-American community he claimed to champion, and in fact represented in the legislature. This is the brand of politics Obama represents, where everyone is either the slumlord or the chump.

I say that only because, on the issues, Hillary and Obama are nearly identical and both represent core Democratic values. There is no case to be made that either one of them are Republican lite.

No. The behavior of Obama is not characteristic for politicians in general but for Democrats and other opportunists. Representatives of the Socialist Equality Party do not act like that.

However, since the 2004 election was brought up, let me say that it is my firm belief, backed by plenty of evidence, that Ohio was lost due to Republican shenanigans, not to a greater number of Ohio voters preferring Bush.