I like "progressive"- it imparts more meaning than "democrat". Can we start a "progressive" party? 

This is a 2 party nation.  The best way to lose is to fracture your big tent, and there's absolutely no sense in diminishing the Democratic brand.

The power of the conservative movement has always been that it is a trans party movement.  Thus, any legislator or voter who identifies with the movement inherently empowers the more conservative party, the Republican party.  Look no further than the disastrous effects of Joe Lieberman and other Bush Dog Dems.  They've eviscerated the power of the Democratic majority created an effective conservative majority in the Senate (and less so in the House)

The lack of a commensurate progressive movement over the last 20 to 30 years has knee-capped every Democrat for decades, and the need for a trans-party progressive movement for Americans to identify with will enable Republicans to side with Democrats and create across-the-aisle bipartisanship that actually represents American interests.

As a Blue Dog Democrat, I just wanted to let you know how much we appreciate the "Bush Dog Dem" crap.

Oh, and by the way?  Most (and by most, i mean almost 90%) of the seats we "Bush Dog Democrats" hold were WON by Bush in 2000 AND 2004.  So you can kick us out... along with your majority.  Almost every one of those seats you run a traditional liberal in will lose.  Think of it that way.

You need the conservative and moderate wings of the party.  You need MY wings.  And telling us that you don't doesn't help you keep Speaker Pelosi.  It'll be Speaker
Cantor before you know it.

OpenLeft and it's campaign against Moderate and Conservative Democrats is more dangerous to our majority than any Republican candidate could be.  Remember that.

As long as Bush supporting Dems continue to vote against the wishes of the American people, they tarnish the Democratic brand. 

Congressional Democrats have a lower approval than OJ had before the (first) verdict.  That's not because we've shown resolve against Bush, it's because scabs like Lieberman have crossed the lines and abandoned the mandates of 2006.

I don't blame conservative democrats for voting the way they've perceived their constituents.  I blame the failure of the entire left to package the positions that America supports in a way that bolsters Democratic electoral positions and would allow Democrats to support America withtout fear of electoral reprisal.

It's a sad state of affairs but it's what we're left with... Conservatism has packaged reprehensible positions so well that Democrats can't both serve the American people and count on being re-elected by them.

Don't take it personally, Dan, but get your head out of the world view that you're somehow helping Democrats by attacking liberalism.  You're not.

But you get your head out of the activist view that the Democratic Party is for liberal politicians only.  It's not.

As much as I envy his talent, I'm not Matt Stoller, and you're not Zell Miller.  We're both Virginia Dems in the mold of Warner, Kaine, Webb and Petersen.  We understand what it means to knock doors in neighborhoods where Bush/Cheney stickers outnumber Kerry/Edwards 5 to 1.

The point here is that there is finally a trans-party infrastructure for progressivism emerging to take the fight directly to the heart of the reactionary power base that gave us Miller, Bush, Lieberman, and Rudy.

The power of positive progressivism is undeniable and this effort will pay dividends at the ballot box and in policy for generations.

You claimed that the Democratic Party IS the progressive party, I find that, frankly, to be laughable (with a few exceptions, and with the caveat that no matter how bad it is, the Democratic Party is infinitely better than the Bush Republican Party).  What do Matt Stoller and Zell Miller have to do with any of this?  The issue here is Progressivism and the Democratic Party.  At its core, Progressivism opposes the accumulation of corporate power, despoilment of the environment, and inherited (aka, unearned by the recipients) fortunes passed on from generation to generation.  Teddy Roosevelt Progressivism promotes muscular, forceful action in the direction of PROGRESS in all areas.  Do you believe that the Democratic Party is really a Teddy Roosevelt Progressive Party, a centrist/corporatist party, or what?  The answer to that question flows directly into the strategy you choose to adopt.

Of the two, the Democratic party is the progressive party, and the Republican party is the conservative party.  What has happened with the republicans has been a concerted effort to move the party towards the ideology.  The fact that there has been no commensurate effort to activate the progressivism within the Democratic party until recently, doesn't change the fact that Progressivism is at the heart of democracy as well as the Democratic party.  By packaging and marketing conservatism, the right has created cover for Democrats to act in a way that empowers the Republican party, thus all of the crushing defeats you describe. 

Dems perceive the power of the myth of a conservative majority and thus fail to act as progressives, and they are driven to it by an electorate that has bought the big lie for nearly a generation.

We're breaking the cycle and giving America back to herself.

The lack of successful brand development for progressivism, again, until recently, has undermined the Democratic party and will continue to do so, both in terms of  electoral weakness and legislative failure, until the vast majority of Americans realize the truth:  that they are ALREADY progressives, they just got sold a bill of goods by Schaife, Coors, Mellon, Murdoch and their messaging institutions.

*The disgusting bankruptcy bill that penalizes working people for the sin of getting sick and that was written largely by the CREDIT CARD INDUSTRY!
*"Free trade" agreements without environmental, labor or human rights protections.
*Huge corporate subsidies, whether they be for the energy, agribusiness, or any other industry.  That's antithetical to everything Teddy Roosevelt and other great progressives have stood for.
*A FISA bill that gives retroactive immunity to telecom's
*An energy bill that does not vigorously combat global warming and promote renewable energy.  That's the current energy bill, by the way.
*Open-ended war with no checks and balances on the Executive Branch.
*No-bide contracts to cronies of said Executive Branch.
*Phony, feel-good "reform" (actually unfunded government mandates that hurt kids) like "No Lobbyist Left Behind" (er, No Child Left Behind).
*Massive tax cuts to the richest Americans, a reversal of progressive taxation and adoption of "trickle down"/"supply side" lunacy.
*An immigration system that systematically provides CORPORATIONS with a huge pool of cheap, exploitable labor while contributing to the diminution of labor power in this country.
*Overall, a huge shift in power away from the people towards the powerful (e.g., the corporations).
*An addiction to oil, and to the unsavory regimes that produce oil.
*Any constitutional amendment that restricts peoples' rights, such as "Defense of Marriage."

I could go on and on, but I believe that to call the current Democratic Party "the progressive party" is simply absurd.  Are there progressives within the Democratic Party?  Sure.  Are most Democratic electeds truly "progressives?"  Eh, not so much.  Actually, that's being charitable.  We have a LOOOONG way to go before we truly have a Progressive Party -- Teddy Roosevelt style or otherwise -- in this country.  Why do you think people are so dissatisfied with BOTH political parties right now?  Why do you think a Ross Perot can come along in 1992 and got 19% of the vote?  Why do you think there's talk of a Michael Bloomberg reform/independent/Progressive candidacy this year?

By the way, for the 500th time I'm going to say:  PROGRESSSIVE IS NOT A SYNONYM FOR LIBERAL.  To the contrary, Progressive means exactly what it says -- making progress.  From the inheritance tax to environmental protection to expanding the franchise (and rights in general) to combatting excessive corporate power, to fighting for the little guy, that's what Progressivism has always stood for.  In contrast, modern liberalism has become in many ways a collection of interest groups more concerned with perpetuating their own organizations and "going along to get along" than in truly making "progress."

This is why there is a need to engage in primaries to challenge lawmakers that run under one banner, but govern under another, and why we have to organize to get more progressives into office -- why it's equally important to support Judy Feder against Frank Wolf, Donna Edwards against Al Wynn, and to pressure good guys like Udall in New Mexico to run for Senate.

The Democratic Party is emphatically not a progressive party, at least as it governs, right now. We are a long way from that point, especially in the Senate. It's going to take on the order of a decade to transform our government and get more progressives of every stripe into office, and 2008 is the best opportunity we'll probably ever have to transform the Senate.

On a different point, the example of Teddy Roosevelt is an apt one for so many reasons. Not only were his policies a reaction to a decade plus of Congress and the government being run entirely for the benefit of the large private interests and trusts, but TR saw what the first American version of neo-conservatism and neo-colonialism looked like in the Spanish-American war and the dominion of the Philippines, and he learned from the folly of this idea. TR was an emblem of the idea that men can learn from mistakes and become better people/leaders.

Lowell, you are exactly correct on this one.

The most famous is the one that Teddy Roosevelt formed in 1912 for his last Presidential run.  It split the Republicans and elected a Democrat.  There's a lesson there.  There have been others.

A decent summary is in wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia....

This is a great ad campaign- conservatives have proven to be against everything- very negative.  Progressives have been pro-active.  We need to spread the word and I guess this is one way to do it!  Pass it along.

The first of many, many, many that will bolster the brand of progressivism.  Can I get a AMEN!

Raising Kaine aspires to be the voice of progressive Virginia, and I think that's great -- in theory.  In practice, however, I am concerned that our focus may have shifted increasingly towards simply helping Democrats -- conservative, moderate, or progressive -- win elections.  That's fine, particularly  given the alternative in this state's far-right-wing extremist Republican Party (e.g., Tricia Stall).  However...I am concerned that we have not been spending enough time and energy arguing our progressive ideas like protecting the environment, opposing the Dominion Power-written reregulation bill, opposing repeal of the estate tax (the most progressive tax ever invented, taxing super-rich dead people!), reforming the way campaigns are conducted and money flows to our elected officials, etc., etc.  I am also concerned that we have pulled our punches time after time when Democrats have acted contrary to progressive principles (offshore drilling? repeal the estate tax? pass a reregulation bill written by Dominion Power?).  Perhaps it is time to have a discussion about the focus of Raising Kaine as we move into the crucial election year of 2008.  Will this blog truly be the "voice of progressive Virginia," or will it be mainly another voice to elect Democrats, regardless of ideology?  Either are acceptable, and maybe we can even do both, but I think it's worthy of an intelligent discussion.

In my humble opinion

When you start advancing true progressive ideals instead of becoming rubberstamps for the democratic party you have a much greater chance of attracting more independents and even some republicans to your cause. 

I think a perfect example of this was the Charlie Hall campaign this spring where I actually crossed party lines to help out the arguably more "progressive" candidate

As the Loudoun county elections showed there is a large population of smarter growth people out there.  From the other points you posted the Dominion and election reform issues also have some traction across party lines.  (I know you already follow Bacons Rebellion but for others that site is an excellent example of other Republican Progressive ideas that people are willing to partner on) 

Looking towards the future I will be watching this site with interest with regards to the 11th congressional race.

Let me close with this one caveat/caution.  There is a big difference between the term liberal and the term progressive. 

Just a couple points

of reorienting my focus more towards Progressivism and less towards Democrats per se.  Of course, given the choice between a right winger and a centrist Dem, I'll take the centrist Dem every time.  But overall, I want the Democratic Party to start acting like Teddy Roosevelt -- e.g., busting trusts, not taking orders from them!

Warner, Webb, Kaine, Chap, Northam, Deeds.  These guys are all good Centrist Dems.  And even those these guys are self-proclaimed moderates and centrists, by the campaigns definition, they are also progressives.

I mean, I'm pretty centrist.  But if supporting Social Security, National Healthcare, the Environment, and Worker's Rights makes you a progressive, then count me in.

You can call yourself a moderate, but please don't make the mistake of calling yourself a "centrist".

Centrism is triangulation.  Pick whatever psychotic, reactionary position, find the moderate position, then go half way... that's the centrist position... say hi to Joe Lieberman while you're there.

Moderates are progressive... on every issue you can think of, the majority side with the progressive position and that progressive position is essentially moderate.

I couldn't agree more about progressives.  I love the Apple commercial spin off.  Ironically, the two videos I have enjoyed the most in the 2008 campaign (so far) are related to Apple.
Vote Different and the Progress is American (Pro vs Con) video posted here.