I just reread your diary "To Be a Fighting Democrat" for the first time since it was on the Recommend List on Daily Kos.  Rereading it made me remember why I thought the idea of Fighting Democrats was so compelling in the first place.  

Of course, now the phrase has been given the conceptual equivalent of a "gut and amend" by the DCCC, helped along by Kos of all people.  (The most interesting side of this story is how Kos has found himself perpetuating a DLC-backed stratagem, despite his strong opposition to the group).  

I'm particularly struck by the irony of the DCCC's interpretation of Fighting Dem as former soldier given the following part of your post:

And, I think, we need to be the party that incorporates some form of "national service" into the educational program of the United States, whether voluntary or not....we Democrats need to win back the mantle of patriotism with a proposal for national service that works...bringing equity to military service and broadening, once and for all, the concept of "service to country" beyond the act of taking up a gun to defend it.

Meet Tim Dunn. NC-08. (map) He's a Democrat. He's anti-choice and he's against gay marriage. If you live in North Carolina don't vote for this guy.

You can donate to Tim at this Act Blue site page, Pro-Life Democrats (new list for 2006 races). But why would you want to? This also begs the question. How is supporting anti-reproductive freedoms acting blue? Wouldn't that fall under the heading of Acting Red?

If you have some time to kill, go googling: "Tim Dunn" pro-life and read what some are saying about Tim Dunn.

My personal pledge is, I don't vote for any anti-choice candidate regardless of party and I do what I can to make sure they aren't elected. I urge all of you to take the pledge with me.

Part of the problem is that I don't remember the genesis of the term "Fighting Dem" in the way you remember it.  For me, it was always tied with Kid Oakland's diary until the DCCC stepped in after the Hackett race and changed the meaning.  That is, it started being a term to describe something much more complicated than "Democratic veteran."

I can believe and accept that you first encountered the term as a phrase to "encompass candidate who wore the uniform."  Furthermore, I'm ready to concede that as a matter of pure historical fact it might have begun that way.

But my experience does not line up with yours, and so I view the DCCC's use of Fighting Dem as pure cooptation.  Thus, I respond to seeing certain candidates (i.e. the ones who I have no reason to believe will actually fight for Democratic principles) termed Fighting Dems ONLY BECAUSE of their veteran status, in two ways.  

First I have a response to the substantive underlying implications of the DCCC's use of the term.  In other words, I respond to what I take the DCCC to mean by the term "Fighting Dem."  This response would be no different if the DCCC had instead called the group "Democratic Vets" "Macho Dems" or what have you.  

But in addition, I respond to the fact that, in my view, the DCCC has undercut a concept I really had an affinity for.  The concept of Fighting Dems as it came out of Kid Oakland's diary was very much in line with what a lot of us in the grassroots have been yearning for.  So when the DCCC takes that term and redefines it in a way that is, in my view, less clear, less useful, etc. I get angry.  

And let us remember that there was a lot of enthusiasm generated for the Democrats who were pugnacious in their defense of Democratic principles.  But somehow, through marketing and rhetoric, there was an effort to redirect that enthusiasm to Democratic veterans who may or may not be pugnacious in their defense of Democratic principles.

Of course, to the extent that a given Democratic vet is going to fight for Democratic principles, he is a Fighting Dem in both meaning of the term.  And in my view, as long as he really does fight for Democratic principles, he deserves all of the enthusiasm coming his way.  For example, I am very impressed with Lt. Colonel Charles Brown in CA-04, and think he is very worthy of netroots enthusiasm and support.

But the flip side of the coin is that there are Democratic candidates who are running in contested primaries in which a Democratic veteran is rather less committed to fighting for Democratic principles than the other Democrat or Democrats in the race.  And I bet that those of us who react most strongly to the DCCC Fighting Dem marketing strategy are those who are paying attention to these type of races.  I know I react strongly when I see a principled Democrat defender like Charles Brown lumped in with a Democratic veteran who has not demonstrated their willingness to stand up and fight for Democratic ideals.  Not only does it potentially do a disservice to the candidates who will stand up and fight for our values, it also helps the candidates who won't.  In other words, it provides coattails to candidates who really don't deserve them.

For example, Jerry McNerney's opponent Steve Filson has been included in the candidate section of the Band of Brothers PAC.  Part of their mission statement reads:

We will highlight the unpopularity of the war in Iraq while turning a populist critique of excessive corporate influence into a broader statement about the contrast between special interests and the real interest of the nation.

Now I cannot believe anyone included Steve Filson in this group based on any compatibility with this mission statement.  Whatever you think about Filson as a candidate, he clearly has not demonstrated any willingness or desire to highlight the unpopularity of the war in Iraq OR to engage in a substantive populist critique of corporate influence.  So I am left thinking that he got in simply because he is a vet.

The Band of Brothers can do whatever they want to do and support whomever they want to support, and for whatever reason.  But looking at their site I am left with the feeling that the two different meanings of "Fighting Dem" have been conflated by them. And I see it all over the net.  And the real political upshot of this is that they may give aid and support to someone who really doesn't support their principles.  

Being a veteran should not give any Democratic candidate a golden ticket in a contested primary.  And when the term "Fighting Dem" is used as such, or when it is used as a club by a Democratic vet in a contested Democratic primary where the veteran has less demonstrated commitment to fighting for Democratic principles than the other candidate(s), there is bound to be a backlash.  

I completely agree with this post.  Don't read anything I said above as taking away from my complete agreement with you here.