do things here.  I've not seen this before.  You seem genuinely engaged with the posters.  Nice.

Ok, here's my theory.  I think Obama has made the political calculation that he probably needs to bring in independents to win the democratic nomination over Hillary, hence the non-Democratic id part.  I'm not saying the he's not for "a new kind of politics" but I think we can attribute some of the rhetoric to that.  For me, I've seen this exact campaign before; "new kind of politics", "what a movement looks like" yada yada yada.  Deval Patrick.  He, by the way, also touted a handful of Republican supporters early on to make his case for being more "electable".  Coincidence?  I doubt it.  I think that's why I couldn't get into the Obama movement.  I've seen it before but with a candidate I prefer who was able to make the same case as Obama while also branding himself a Democrat.  

Right now you can do that by making a personal commitment to support Barack Obama every month until he's the Democratic nominee.

This is the first time in presidential politics that so many people have taken an active role this early. If we continue to sustain our growth it will have a huge impact on candidates up and down the Democratic ticket in 2008.

Today he's got a plan to end it. His plan to begin a phased withdrawal of our troops by May 1st is the foundation around which Democrats of all stripes have united.

Meanwhile, George Bush released his administration's report on the "progress" in Iraq. It's another example of how deep in denial he is about what's really happening. The past three months have been some of the deadliest since the war began, and things are getting worse -- not better.

The war in Iraq should never have been authorized, never have been waged, and it must end now....

George Bush just finished a press conference where he tried to tell people that progress is being made in Iraq and against al Qaeda. The press will report his spin and obfuscation -- but you can have an impact on their coverage.

In the Senate, the Republican minority has managed to prevent any vote at all.

In the future, more and more people are poised to get sick of the terms Republican and Democrat, as they quickly becoming synonomous with bickering and corruption.

Yeah, recycle the "no difference" meme from 2000 and merge it with "they're all alike" so that republicans have another excuse for their bad behavior. How do you like where we are now, eh?

I have to keep reminding myself that candidates and campaigns are not responsible for, nor do they control their amateur fans.

To get the Democratic Party nomination a candidate must get delegates. In the past the delegate selection plan in my state has included delegates elected at the congressional district level (from the people who show up at county/township meetings)  distributed by the percentage of vote the candidate garnered in the primary vote (there is a minimum 15% threshold), delegates elected at the state party convention (again distributed by percentage of the vote in the primary), PLEO [party leader/elected official] delegates elected by the state party committee (also distributed by percentage vote in the primary), and "super delegates" [If the governor is a Democrat, that person is automatically one of these. If a senator or any U.S. representative is a Democrat, they are  automatically one of these]. A caveat about percentage vote in the primary - in my state these tend to be very low turnout elections. The party activists and people with strong party affiliation are the group who can be counted on to turn out in highest percentages - that is, they're over represented in the primary when it comes to the general voting population.

Generally, a majority of the people who end up being delegates have some very strong connections to and a very long history of activism in the party. They tend to take a dim view of people who use republican memes or talking points to disrespect the Democratic Party. Super delegates [those elected officials] are beholden to the party rank and file to get elected [the party and campaign volunteers who spend a lot of time helping candidates do so]. Those "super delegates", when given a close choice, are not going to piss off the rank and file when it comes time to commit to a candidate.

If one candidate has the nomination in a runaway, this reality probably won't make a difference. If it's a close contest for the nomination, it could make all of the difference in the world - after all, the process is for selecting the Democratic party nominee for president.

I want to give you an example that I think illustrates this fact. As some of you know, during the 2004 U.S. Senate General Election I ran against a gentleman named Alan Keyes. Mr. Keyes is well-versed in the Jerry Falwell-Pat Robertson style of rhetoric that often labels progressives as both immoral and godless...
And that is why that, if we truly hope to speak to people where they're at - to communicate our hopes and values in a way that's relevant to their own - then as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.

Every four years Democratic candidates run away from seeming "angry" or "partisan".  Every four years Republicans are unapologetically partisan, at least in the primary season.  Clinton excepted, every four years the Democratic candidate loses.  

You would think by now that people would stop copying a losing strategy.

One, I don't know how you could characterize someone who is admittedly "leaning towards Hillary" as a "newbie Obamacrat."

Secondly, Obama has been quite liberal with the "progressive" and "Democrat(ic)" labels in speeches, debates, etc. Your choice to use one communications medium (email) as necessarily representative of all statements Obama has made in regards to the "partisan" subject, is mystifying.

What?

and the GOP starts portraying "Hussein" Obama as a cocaine abusing ultralib with no zero foreign policy experience and ties to a radical black separatists, how long before he starts appealing to the sphere and other "progressive" and "Democratic" constituencies to help him engage in some deeply partisan warfare?

But hey, for now those indies in NH really dig him, and, in any case, "to know him is to love him."

As for Armstrong calling out loving j, the Edwards supporter in me likes it, the bleeding heart in me wants to call the fight before loving j gets massacred.

I think this is an Edwards meme.
Or maybe it's a Republican meme.

Here's how.  

Conservativism is about impeding progress.
Impeding progress is easy in a divided electorate.
It's also easy when liberals-Democrats-progressives divide.
Democrats can attract support in three ways.

1. Ask people to be liberal.
   
2. Ask people to be Democrats.
   
3. Ask people to join us in solving our problems and getting important things done.

Or...

1. Compromise on policy (triangle).
   
2. Hope that people who've rejected our way in the past finally "come to their senses (traditional adversarial message)
   
3. Convert people by establishing and making good use of human connections, getting skeptics to see who we are / what we stand for as the normal, obvious, "right" place for people of goodwill to be (subversive shift-the-political-culture-left message).

Compromise when you can do better is selling out.
Number two is nice in theory but it's a failing strategy except when things are so bad people are looking for a reason to change (Civil War, Great Depression, Watergate, Iraq).  Even then, it's highly dependent on circumstance and is pretty superficial (i.e. were Dixiecrats more Democratic or Republican?).  Number three is radical and lasting.

For example, we are not winning over young people on gay rights by saying come be Democratic or liberal; we're doing it by saying "how can we be any different?"  

We aren't denying that we are Democrats and that we are better than the Republican party ... but that is not the essence of what we want: real progress toward a truly humane, inclusive society.

We are the party, the people that will make that happen.  But there's no way we can do it alone.  We need some help.  Knowing how to relate well to people who are "other" than us, who are different, who are often afraid of us or who are prejudiced against us ... that is where real progress will come from.  

IMO.

The rhetorical analysis is fair but I think Jerome just makes too much of it.  Clearly, John Edwards is trying to brand himself as the Progressive (which has a meaning that often lies in the beholder).  Clearly, Obama is running to a wider audience.  Both are good strategies, though Edwards' is much more tailored to the good folks who vote in Iowa Caucuses.  Any great campaign, in the long run, needs to bring in independents and newbies to the process to back the nominee oif the Democratic party.  That is what it is all about.  Both Edwards & Obama are doing it in a way that does not divide.  Both Edwards & Obama will motivate the "base".  The question for me then is: who will do more to expand the base?   Obama is black enough and he is Democratic enough.

Exactly right.

I am a Democrat and have been for a long time.  I am looking for a real Democrat to be our nominee.

I am a Democrat for a reason: we care about ordinary folks, middle class, poor, working people.  These are core Democratic values and they are not Republican values.

I am not looking for a post-partisan candidate.

I am a Democrat because we are right.  Here we have a great chance to transform politics, and Obama (as well as some of his supporters) reject the brand in favor of a person.  It is the antithesis of what you and Markos are trying to do with the netroots.  We need to create a strong party based on shared beliefs, a real movement, not a cult based on following a "hero," a hero who is bound to fail because he is human.  It is the opposite of empowerment.

My God, the Republican Party is in a shambles.  Iraq has doomed them.  We can win.  And Obama runs from the Democratic brand.

This is one of your best posts.  Thank you.  

Chris did a similar study before he left on the number of times "progressive" was used on candidate websites and Edwards had like 5,000, next was Kucinich with a few 100, and near the bottom were Hillary and Obama with maybe 18ish.

Anyone got the link.

This might be worth talking about if Jerome had his facts right.  As was shown above by psericks, Democrat and Democratic have been used in Obama e-mails.  In other words, this is bullshit.

Having worked as a precinct captain for Dean in Iowa and now volunteering for the Obama campaign, I can tell you that the voice of voters in Iowa does not support some of the arguments here.

What I hear from the people I talk to is not a desire for a firebrand Dem, but a visionary leader. People want to be inspired again by a leader and have trust and faith in that. The primary voters are not telling me that they want a fierce Democratic preaching the Democratic gospel. They want someone that has the vision of what the Democratic party should stand for.

The follow point is that the voters here are still wholly undecided, but when you start to talk about vision and passion, they are not mentioning Edwards or Clinton...they are mentioning Richardson and Obama.

Obama is a Independent Democrat, just like that guy from CT. Why the fuck is he running away fro his own party? Politics is about holding hands and everyone in agreement with your positions. I don't know what pages Obama is going to turn, but he is going to end up turning a lot of pages and by the time he is done, his campaign will be over or he will lose the election.

"In actuality, we MUST work with the other side right now to get anything done...at least until we can assemble a majority that can overcome parlimentary tactics."
 --We have bent over backwards to owrk with Republicans in both chamber of Congress, but the assholes dont want to work with us.

"Now is not the time for purple post-partisanship, but a rare opportunity to get some of the things that we've been fighting for for years -- universal healthcare, serious energy plans to address the climate crisis, better union rules, a serious struggle to help the working poor and the entire middle class, etc."-- FUCK YES!  

IF Obama is avoiding the labels Democrat, Democratic and Progressive and you think that will fail to win him the nomination, why do you sound so angry about it?  Clearly Obama is NOT the candidate you want to win the Democratic nomination, so if his rhetoric and phrasing is doomed to turn off primary voters, I would think you would be celebrating this gift to your preferred candidate's chances rather complaining about it. Your posts about Obama sound so bitter and negative, if he's shooting himself in the foot, I would think those supporting other candidates would be pleased.

My answer to Jerome Armstrong

I wrote a diary in response.

Jerome,

I have one direct question for you:  what have all the "democrat" spouting dems actually done that is truly progressive?

On the other hand, show me a substantive time when Sen. Obama has been like a Rethug in deed?

NOTE:  both questions are only about deeds, not words.  At some point, when the rhetoric and the actions do not match up, your cognitive dissonance should be deafening enough even for an irresponsible frontpager like you (of course there are many others, mostly on the "left") to recognize it.

All of you with this suicidal fascination with johnny/hilly-come-lately-to-the-progress ive-rhetoric folks who were Rethuggian in their actions, when the actions actually had deadly consequences, you are no better than the corporate stenographers with a narrative to spin to.

They are vying for the Democratic primaries, for heaven's sake.  Why would they need to keep mentioning the tag now, when we are supposedly talking amongst friends?  Or are the others so insecure in their identities (with reason, I might add) that they need to label themselves to be seen as one, for their actions point elsewhere?

Jerome,
I usually like your diaries, but, what is this??  For one thing, where are you getting the number of emails that are sent out by the candidate/campaign manager??  I get emails from Dave Contarino or "Bill Richardson" once or twice every week.  I just got one last night that uses Democrat, Democrats, or Democratic 6 times:

Bill Richardson is the only Democrat calling on Congress to take a different path: end the debate now by de-authorizing the war and bring all the troops home.

That's just one example, but it's an example in which not only is the word used, but it's used as a direct label for the candidate!!

Regardless, I think there are so many other ways to measure candidates' aversion to or friendliness with the "D", "L", or "P" words.  Looking around the website, reading press releases, listening to stump (and non-stump) speeches, that sort of thing.

I'm really disappointed in this diary.

Why is this guy taken seriously anymore? Jerome's obsession with Obama borders on the pathological. It's not funny anymore. To be honest, I'm a little bit worried about Jerome.

I want a partisan Democratic nominee. I do not buy into the "post partisan" feely touchy direction that the GOP will be nice if we just hold their hand (while they stab us in the back with their other hand). Lieberman, Unity, etc. all have elements of that type of theme and most of us can see what they really are.

Quite amazing, though not surprising.  People think it's more important to say the word, than live the word.  It's like asking please pander to me.  People object to Obama running a general election strategy in the Primary.  I guess people are happy with the normal style of running to the left in the primary and then running to the center in the general.  Please pander to me and have no principles.  Please just say the word, don't live it.

The question should be which candidate has registered the most Democratic voters?  Which candidate has raised the most money for Democratic candidates?  Which candidate has energized the most people to become active in politics?  Which candidate has shown the most consistent dedication to Democratic/Progressive issues and values?  Former self-proclaimed Centrist John Edwards?   Former DLCer Hillary Clinton?  Or Barack Obama.

MyDD's new slogan: Words, not Actions.  

This is amazing. We agree on something. Cool!

I think there is a point when we all have to agree to disagree. Suffice to say I think that many times Jerome's criticisms of Obama are actually what I think are Obama's strengths.

We must just look at the same candidate thru very different lens.

I like his thoughtful and non-partisan approach. I like that he seems real, down to earth and even reads Harry Potter. I am encouraged by his career history and think it speaks volumes about his progressive beliefs and vision. I don't care how many times Obama uses certain words in his emails.  It is not relevant to me.

This is utterly pointless. You take a word that Edwards mentioned 5 times ot make him look like the one who is not calculating.

It bugs me when candidates from my party do not seem to want to be in my party.

Progressive Blue

I think it's a little silly to try to derive any meaning from this at all. There could be any number of reasons why a candidate did or did not use a specific term in an email to supporters.  This does not equate to any of the candidates either embracing or rejecting any particular philosophy or ideal.  I'd prefer to judge them on their policies and ideas, not whether they used the word "progressive" in their emails.