I don't retain read emails for long, but I easily found this:

July 16 email titled "Next Steps":

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.

Wow, you made it, Jerome. You're precisely as useful and accurate a source of information and analysis as the MSM.

What do Todd Bennett and Ronald Reagan have to do with this post?

Todd Bennett doesn't speak for the Obama campaign. I think he's actually a Hillary supporter.

And I don't see where I mentioned Reagan in this post. Even so, I don't think it's a bad thing to evaluate the past successes of both your ideological soulmates and opponents--observe Edwards and Obama attempting to draw parallels with the Kennedy campaigns. There are also certain lessons to be learned from Reagan, which have already been absorbed by Democratic candidates: speaking in soundbites, the use of background to enhance a point being made, etc. He's not being uplifted for what he believed in, he's being uplifted for the talents he indisputably possessed. He won every state in the 1984 general election other than Minnesota--as much as I may detest the man for what he did to the country, I don't think there can be any argument that he was a good campaigner. But just to reiterate, that doesn't really have anything to do with my post.

To speak to the email thing: Obama and his supporters, as you've probably been made aware by now, have in fact used the word "Democratic" campaign emails. But even so, nobody else used the word more than 3 times. I mean, you're really starting to dig pretty deep in your effort to discredit his progressive credentials... it's starting to get truly bizarre

So, in his initial run up to the Presidency in 1931 and 1932, you claim that FDR commonly used strong partisan rhetoric?

Odd. This speech certainly doesn't support that:

Campaign Speech in Atlanta, Ga., October 24, 1932:

I am confident after the 4th of March next that the American people will find a greater co-operation between these two great branches of government - a better relationship in which not only democrats but republicans as well take part.

Damn his 'Kumbaya'-singing, come-together tripe.

Later in that speech, he specifically took two Democratic legislators to task (pointing out their party and, therefore Democratic wrongdoing):

It is only fair to say that the bill appropriating funds to purchase additional stock in the federal land bank was introduced in the house of representatives by a democratic representative from the state of Alabama, Mr. Stegall; and in the senate the amount was increased from $100,000,000 to $125,000,000 by an amendment offered by another democrat from the state of Alabama, Senator Hugo Black.

While he goes after the Hoover administration, he does NOT go after 'Republicans' at any time in that speech.

In fact, according to the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University:

In campaign speeches, he favored a buoyant, optimistic, gently paternal tone spiced with humor.

That's in commentary on his first inaugural address (a speech with no reference to either party or partisanship).

Should we look earlier in his campaign?

The "Portland Speech", September 21, 1932:

When questions like these are under consideration, we are not Democrats, we are not Republicans; we are a people united in a common patriotism. This is the spirit of my entire campaign.

And, guess what? That's the ONLY incidence of the word 'Democrat' in the whole speech (no 'Democratic', either).

Earlier?

Campaign Address at Columbus, Ohio, August 20, 1932:

I regret that necessity, for destructive criticism is never justified for its own sake. And yet, to build we must first clear the ground. We must find out why the Republican leadership--and mind you, all the way through this campaign I am not talking about the millions of fine men and women who make up the Republican Party, I am addressing my remarks to the Republican leadership--why that Republican leadership built so unwisely.

Apologetics to the Republican BASE (as opposed to its leadership) is NOT the language of "unabashed partisanship".

How about the speech that really launched his candidacy, the one TIme Magazine called 'rabble rousing' and the very politcally active Charlie Chaplin said "Lifted American politics out of its cynical drowse and established the most inspiring era in American history."

FDR's 'Forgotten Man' Speech, April 7, 1932
Just into the speech, the SECOND sentence is:

I do not want to feel that I am addressing an audience of Democrats or that I speak merely as a Democrat myself. The present condition of our national affairs is too serious to be viewed through partisan eyes for partisan purposes.

What a sellout, denying the party like that.

The speech ends:

It is high time to get back to fundamentals. It is high time to admit with courage that we are in the midst of an emergency at least equal to that of war. Let us mobilize to meet it.

And between that earlier quote and those ending lines, the words 'Democrat', 'Democratic', 'Republican', are completely absent.

While FDR assuredly WAS quite partisan, you (and, obviously, Jerome) seem to have a basic problem confusing rhetorical style with action and agenda.