The party I grew up with has always been the champion for:

The "blue collar and working class".

They have always stood up for woman's rights.

They've always been pro union and a defender workers rights.

They respected the elderly and the contributions they have made to the betterment of our society.

They understood the disadvantages faced by the poor and implemented programs to help people get out of poverty.

They were the party of the people, not the moderate wing of the Republican Party.

The difference seems to be that when Republicans are in charge they could care less about appeasing Democrats. They have their marching orders and steamroll their agenda through. Their concern os to satisfy their base.

I think the definition of democrat as applied to most democrats in the country is wildly disconnected from the term as used here.

I think it might be a good move on your part to stop being so intent on whether we do or don't meet your - or some pollster's - definition of "Democrat," and more time looking at the policies people here are advocating.  I don't really understand why you - who purport to be a big believer in the "big tent" - are so determined that we shape ourselves to fit some generic construct - I don't know what that gains you, not in terms of getting better policy, at a minimum.

I think Obama ca make a horrible deal and still win when the GOP tells us boldly that they want to slash medicare and SS even more.

Sigh.  You don't really hear yourself, do you?  "Still win" what, exactly?  And for whom?  Shouldn't "winning" in the case of a president have something to do with  more than just personal political gain?  Shouldn't there be some element of what he's doing for the people - the vast majority of whom do not have the voice that money and power accords?  I'm not seeing a president who works to that end, but you want us to believe that it is better that he get to keep what he's doing because, so far, it's not as bad as what the GOP wants to do.  

That's not good enough.

I think it is a mistake to underestimate how much the nation values a person who is seeking compromise in good faith in a difficult position.  

And I think it is a mistake to underestimate how angry ordinary people will be when the dust settles on whichever craptastic deal gets done.  Layoffs are picking up speed, the government itself has plans to layoff tens of thousands of people from its computer centers, sending even more people out into a non-existent jobs market.  Do you really think, as that situation worsens, and we add benefit cuts and the states start hacking even more at their own budgets, that people are going to be grateful for the "compromises" that ultimately are going to further compromise their own financial present?  Have you lost your mind?

If Obama can avoid disaster, he will end up looking very good and it will bolster his election chances.

Is "disaster" just that the debt ceiling doesn't get raised?  Seems to me that he may be able to avoid one disaster, only to have created another for millions of people.  It may be that in the immediate - like first 10 minutes - of getting a deal done, he will look...okay, but beyond that, I think he will look worse with every bad jobs report, every increase in the unemployment rate, every announcement by state governors of more cuts in services, every last little bit of coverage on just how hard benefits cuts are going to hit people.  There are no points awarded for not cutting the safety net as bad as the other guys want to.

This fact has little to do with whether the ultimate deal is actually very good.  The public will remember the process and forget the substance because no one on either side is going to point to the result and proudly claim that they slashed SS for example.

Now, you've just gone off the rails; people actually don't care about process - they care about results, about how the policies and laws being made in Washington affect their ability to survive.  And I wouldn't be so sure that Obama won't brag about what he did to the safety net, either.

This is one situation in which the parties, their positions and a lack of primary will leave us with no one arguing that this deal was horrible for those relying on entitlements.
What candidate is going to make that argument?

"No one" will be arguing that the deal was horrible?  I think you've left some important people out of this equation: the people negatively, in fact, punitively, affected by the deal.  They will be arguing all the way to the voting booth.

The public will remember the process and forget the substance

That's the point. Perhaps you missed the video with the guys out front, one with stalking around with a club... No intimidation there! No sir! Just move along, nothing to see here.

Now to the subject at hand.

Of course there is this small matter that the prosecutors might have thought that the defense would bring up. From the link provided.

While confirming that "someone using a News America Marketing computer address" accessed Floorgraphics' password protected computers, News America spokeswoman Halpin told NBC that "this site was available to hundreds, if not thousands, of Floorgraphics retailers, representatives of consumer packaged goods companies and Floorgraphics employees. There is considerable employee movement within this industry, and we believe it was someone with an authorized password. News America Marketing condemned this conduct, which is in violation of the standard of our company."