Who's afraid of Yellow Dog Democrats?

This is an insightful analysis of differences within the Democratic Party, and why 2006-2008 need not split the party like Johnson’s principled stand on civil rights did in the 1960s ("Unprogressive Democrats," by Michael Kazin at TomPaine.com):

An overwhelming number of Democrats in the new House and Senate do endorse proposals that would begin to reverse the damage GOP administrations since 1981 have done to the welfare of ordinary Americans. Their program includes a serious hike in the minimum wage, tax breaks for college tuition, federal support for low-cost green energy sources, and the legal reform that would enable millions to join unions. A Bush veto would likely follow passage of any of these bills. But together, they could plant the seeds of a New Deal for the 21st century.
Isn’t that prospect worth a bit of compromise with office-holders whose constituents still regard “liberalism” as a metaphor for the anti-Christ? Democrats who can unite behind and forcefully advocate a package of populist economic measures will be in a good position to win the presidency in 2008. Without a friend in the White House, those seeds will never bloom into a fairer, more egalitarian society. So liberals might heed the wisdom of the prancing pundit Mick Jagger, “You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need.”

The Democrats should be pretty united on economic issues at least. Because those have the most popularity, and most clearly identify the contrast between Democrats and Republicans, some of those that are virtually unopposable should be nailed down first -- with more, especially a health insurance solution, to come after 2008.