Stop me if you’ve heard this one…
A lesser-known candidate attracts a small following of dedicated supporters by the promise of being different than your usual Washington DC elected officials. Taking advantage of these supporters’ talent in getting the word out over the internet, scheduling meetups of other potential supporters, raising funds and generally building up a wave of enthusiasm that carries the candidate to national prominence, that same candidate starts taking on the trappings of traditional politicians—consultants, pollsters, campaign managers from inside the Beltway—and slowly, but heartbreakingly surely, the candidate moves away from those netroots supporters that got him where he was.
Sound like anyone you know?
Well, to Lowell Feld and Nate Wilcox, authors of Netroots Rising: How A Citizen Army Of Bloggers And Online Activists Is Changing American Politics this is altogether too familiar a story. Lowell and Nate are veterans of several netroots campaigns, such as Wesley Clark, Jim Webb, Tim Kaine, and Mark Warner. Netroots Rising documents instance after instance where candidates are profoundly grateful for the support and work of the netroots only to distance themselves after surrounded by those desperate not to change the status quo of the power circles.
In 2006, Time Magazine named as the Person of the Year the great masses populating the internet and its social networks. Suddenly, you didn’t need to be a well-connected politico in DC to make a huge impact on shaping races but also the political dialogue. Likening it to the Wild West, the netroots changed the power structure and candidates came to see the potential, not only for the getting their face seen and their message out, but for all-important fund raising as well.
But there is a downside for riding a populist wave to front-runner status. Howard Dean, for example, was arguably the first candidate to fully appreciate the power of the netroots, using his "Deaniacs" to build a movement that made even Beltway insiders sit up and take notice, ultimately could not overcome the more traditionally organized Kerry campaign. And viewed as an outsider, Dean did not have the infrastructure to combat the bad p.r. when the "Dean Scream" began to make its endless loops on the cable news shows.
Jim Webb also rode into office, thanks in no small part to his band of netroots supporters, including Lowell Feld, and the man widely believed to be a likely Republican candidate for the 2008 presidential race went down. The intersection of the "top-down" political campaign and the "bottom-up" netroots was not always an easy one. Despite the Webb campaign’s ultimate success, there was a significant amount of tension and misunderstanding, and the authors don’t gloss over this issue. One example of how the more "wild and woolly" netroots didn’t always mesh perfectly with the more restrained and cautious "professionals" was the campaign’s reaction after Lowell essentially called George Allen a racist following the "Macaca" incident (and several other bizarre comments by and revelations about George Allen). Instead of defending him, Webb’s communications director was quoted in the Washington Post as saying, "Well, you know, Lowell doesn’t speak for the campaign." This, despite the fact that Lowell was writing dozens of articles a week, speaking to the press, etc.
Over the years since Dean’s ill-fated run for the presidency and Webb’s successful race for the Senate, the netroots has grown and organized their voices. ActBlue, the online fundraising PAC, has raised more than $56 million dollars since 2004. FireDogLake, Crooks & Liars, and Down with Tyranny’s joint PAC, Blue America, has raised more money on ActBlue than any other PAC, save John Edwards’. And in Washington, money means power and it means access. For this election cycle, Blue America has championed the notion of "more and better Democrats" to help push a more progressive agenda, after some disappointing (but if you read Netroots Rising, entirely predictable) responses from candidates we helped get in office.
We’re still learning…and we’re still trying to get the power elite in Washington to understand that old school politics aren’t going to be enough anymore, a lesson that they are digging in their heels to keep from learning. But what Lowell and Nate have done is give us a primer of the birth of a new power faction, one as yet completely untapped, uncontrolled and treated somewhat suspiciously as only a new power can be and suggest where we have yet to go.
So join me please in welcoming Lowell Feld and Nate Wilcox and let’s discuss how we can raise the awareness and respect of the netroots and how we can get our voices heard.



134 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Lowell, Nate, Welcome to the Lake.
Nicole, Thank you for Hosting today.
Hi Nate and Lowell.
And thanks to my friends here at FDL for inviting me to lead this chat.
Bev, a special thanks to you for all your help. ;)
Thanks guys, it’s a pleasure to be here. Any questions you’ve got, fire away! :)
It feels strange for me to be on another blog, but I’m grateful to and thank FDL for giving me this opportunity, as this is something that I personally have become more and more involved in behind the scenes with our Blue America PAC. My first question to both of you is how did you get involved in netroots campaigning?
Welcome to FDL Nicole, Lowell, and Nate.
FWIW, we definitely need better Democrats as much or more than just more Democrats.
More Donna Edwards types and fewer Al Wynns!!!
Thanks so much for having us. I learned a great deal working on this book. Lowell and I did dozens of interviews and talked to activists, candidates and consultants across the country. Our goal was to document some of the history we had participated in while memories were still fresh. We believe the stories of the netroots revolution in activism of the past decade are important contributions to the historical record of American democracy. We’re honored to be joining the FDL community to talk about the book and the campaigns it covered.
Netroots Rising documents instance after instance where candidates are profoundly grateful for the support and work of the netroots only to distance themselves after surrounded by those desperate not to change the status quo of the power circles.
So we can add Obama to the list but what can we do about it? A lot of hardcore Obama supporters myself included have sworn not to give to Obama until he makes things right on FISA.
Yet many of us will still vote for him but will cutting off the cash be enough to change his mind.
What else can we do? Will the antiFISA group on Obama’s web site change his mind?
Welcome, I’m going to cut to the chase.
After the netroots put a cnadidiate over the top, how do we stop that candiadte from abandoning us?
For example, we are in the middle of this FISA ammendment metldown. Obama is forsaking his promise to support a fillibuster and pundits are saying that the sound of progressives screaming is music to Obama’s ears.
The convention hasn’t happened yet. It there still time to get him back on the right track? And how do we do that?
I had been pretty much out of politics for several years, working as a world oil markets/energy analyst at a totally apolitical federal agency (the US Energy Information Administration). After Bush stole the election from Gore, I started getting politicized again. Then, Bush came in and went hard right, didn’t even try to govern from the center as a “compassionate conservative” or whatever doubletalk/b.s. he was spewing. So I became more politicized. Tax cuts for rich people, pulling out of treaties, alienating the world, trashing the environment, etc., etc.
By 2003 or so, I was ready to fight. That’s when two things came along: 1) Wes Clark, who I saw on Meet the Press in June 2003; and 2) the internet(s). :) I decided that Clark was definitely “The One” to beat Bush, and the development of blogs and other online communications forums (e.g., Yahoo groups, AIM) enabled me to get involved. Which is exactly what I did, getting heavily involved in the Draft Wesley Clark movement. I basically never looked back after that.
Hi Mod
my comment at 7 reads “So we can Obama to the list “
it should read So we can add Obama to the list
Thanks :)
Nicole, what a wonderful introduction to what sounds like a terrific book. I want to thank Lowell (and Jim Webb, too) for denying the GOP the opportunity to run Jesse Helms’ spiritual descendant, George Allen, as President. America dodged a bullet, there, and we should thank our lucky stars for that.
So, Lowell and Nate, how do we keep “our” candidates true to what attracted us to them in the first place, especially when they grow up and meet the fancy consultants who turn their head with idiotic conventional wisdom? Is there a place for netroots populism in a winning general election campaign, or do we exist simply to be disavowed when it’s convenient?
Thanks again to you all for Book Salon, and your book, today!
Sorry, this should have been a reply to Nicole’s first question, “My first question to both of you is how did you get involved in netroots campaigning?”
Nate and Lowell, one of the things that I took away from the book, and it certainly seems to be on many people’s minds here is that it is very easy to get them excited about the potential of netroots campaigning—the email list they can compile for fundraising purposes, the sheer numbers they can get for petitions, meetups, etc. The harder part is to convince them to remain accountable to those same netroots supporters for votes once they are in office. Has that been your experience? Or am I being too sensitive and that lack of responsiveness extends beyond the netroots as they establish themselves in DC?
Thanks for writing this book. It seems to me that those who start with the netroots feel that once they have gotten into position to go to the actual election, they have locked in a bottomless well of support, both active and financially. I think that those who stay with their supporters and the positions that they have taken, e.g. Donna Edwards, they go from strength to strength. Those that start equivocating, e.g. Ned Lamont, struggle to win or actually lose. I guess it is hard to change paradigms of elections – the same losing advisors keep working.
I backed into being an activist. In college in the mid-1990s I took an internship at a major political consulting firm in Texas where I cut newspapers into clip books for out clients and faxed out booklets every morning at 7am. Texas Governor Ann Richards, Paul Begala and future turncoats Mark McKinnon and Matthew Dowd were among my bosses. I eventually started putting the news clips on the web, then we built some simple sites for our clients. After the disastrous defeats of 2002 I backed into being an activist by virtue of being unemployed and pissed off about Tom DeLay’s redistricting of Texas (among other things). So with the help of some very good Democrats in Texas, I started a web site with a petition against DeLay. In a few weeks we had an email list of more than 30,000 pissed off Texas Democrats. I spent the next few years working as a volunteer for Howard Dean, running a congressional campaign against DeLay for Richard Morrison, working for Jerome Armstrong & Mark Warner, John Kerry, and co-writing this book with Lowell.
looseheadprop – I’d argue that we can’t absolutely guarantee that a candidate won’t “abandon” us or stray from his or her promises, but we can definitely use our same netroots organizing tools to hold said candidate as accountable as possible. On the bright side, I’d argue that Obama will be far more accountable to us than Bill Clinton was in 1994 when he started “triangulating,” that’s for sure. I mean, I realize it’s not completely satisfying, but I really doubt that we would have had a Democratic nominee responding to us – the netroots activists – as quickly and directly (albeit, inadequately in many people’s opinion) as Obama did on this FISA situation.
The thing to keep in mind is that politicians ONLY respond to pressure and getting any response out of a candidate (especially a presidential nominee) is in itself a success. Obviously it’s not enough to get a blog post out of Obama, but its a beginning. We know he’s hearing the outcry.
The key now is to punish our House and Senate leadership who let the FISA bill get this far. Jane and Howie and Stoller and Mike Stark are doing a great job of leading the way on the FISA issue. All we can do is keep fighting.
On Ned Lamont, it seems to me that four main factors did him in:
1. The Democratic Party ultimately didn’t get fully behind his candidacy and force Lieberman out
2. The Republicans were very clever, basically not running a candidate and instead throwing their support, de facto, to Lieberman.
3. The Lamont campaign didn’t effectively shift its messaging from the primary to the general election.
4. Netroots attention wandered to other races, particularly the one I worked on, Jim Webb’s in Virginia. “Macaca” on YouTube was partly responsible for that, IMHO, but so were factors #1-#3.
Just got the book delivered this week and started reading this AM.
It seems to me that the word epiphany best sumarizes how people get into political blogging.
I look forward to reading your book soon. So grateful to the blogosphere. It feels like a refuge (like in Fahrenheit 451 — a place for the “book” people to go) away from MSM and its incredible bias and soft news and the “horserace” gamesmanship mentality.
I suppose both right and left find the blogosphere a place to learn and teach the fellow choir. We can come and lick one’s wounds after the inevitable slings and arrows pierce our idealism. Also to help us process the downs more quickly, and get back out there and be active, like the FISA disappointment, but the new FISA opportunity July 8th.
A blogsite can be a political and social and intellectual and moral base camp. And FDL has one of the strongest ones I have seen and enjoyed.
I definitely think you’re onto something here. I guess I’d just say that Rome wasn’t built in a day, that the blogs and the netroots are still just coming into their own, and that we’ve got a lot more work to do if we want a party that really represents our progressive values. Bottom line: we’ve got to keep fighting for what we believe, there’s no other choice as far as I can tell.
obama’s response on fisa was to lie to us. that’s not inadequate – that’s betrayal.
as far as i can see, we have exactly 2 methods to hold people accountable:
1. call them on it when they lie.
2. withhold our support.
do you see any other methods i’ve missed?
Welcome to the Lake, Lowell and Nate.
Great overview, Nicole, just that is a reason to buy the book, I’m looking forward to this discussion, too.
And thanks, guys, for helping us to elect more and better Democrats.
.
Amen Nate.
It’s a lot more than just the same old advisors. Sometimes working in politics is like having the same nightmare for 15 years. The decision makers on campaigns in 2008 are literally the very same pollsters and media consultants and large donors who were running the show when I started in the 1990s. And each year there is a new crop of 20-something campaign managers having the same exact conversations with those exact same consultants making the exact same decisions.
But ultimately, its about the candidates. The generation of office holders and candidates we’ve got now grew up with television politics and spent years learning that game. I often despair that its not possible for candidates to really intuitively understand the new landscape.
Didn’t Leiberman have the mighty Israel lobby behind him, too? That is massive ballast. Goes along with number 1, I guess.
I think that is the case for very many of us.
Election Day 2004 was my birthday, and I had gone into the day so very optimistic and by the end of the evening, I was literally in tears, promising my kids that I would do whatever I could to fight what I saw was a hopelessly corrupted system.
What do you think of the latest Wes Clark brouhaha?
Dean did not have the infrastructure to combat the bad p.r. when the “Dean Scream” began to make its endless loops on the cable news shows.
This incident shows one of our weaknesses the Main Stream Media can exaggerate anything about our candidates to destroy them by just repeating the story over and over again.
Although that tape of Hilary crying backfired and gave her New Hampshire the “Tweety Effect ” :).
McCain on the other hand has been on the Senate Armed Forces Committee for years and he still gets Sunni and Shia confused which suggests Dyslexia or that we are about to elect 2nd term senile Reagen to office.
But the Media is silent on this and we can’t seem to stop them.
Even though less people are watching the media, ad revenues suck and their stock prices are tanking, but still they keep pumping out stories that most of us 70%ers find to be boring, slanted, untrue etc.
Lowell, you worked for Jim Webb’s Senate campaign, and that campaign in its infancy was truly a netroots Draft Webb movement, as was Wesley Clark’s before him.
However, Webb was successful in blending some more old school campaigning with it to ultimately win the seat. Notwithstanding the “macaca” moment that damaged George Allen (and thanks to the bloggers from which that started and reverberated throughout the blogosphere and media), do you feel that Webb’s campaign is a blueprint for the successful campaign marriage of old and new school politics?
Also, what is the future of net neutrality? The stronger we get, the bigger the incentive to exercise control by the corporate power thugs.
I think the main thing you’re overlooking is targeting. Howie and the crew at Blue America have done a great job of looking for vulnerable points where we can impact the corrupt establishment. The Donna Edwards victory being a prime example.
In Texas, in 2003/2004/2005 the netroots and the Democratic establishment came together to purge several Democratic State Reps who backed Tom DeLay/Rick Perry on the redistricting fight. In Houston in 2004, we had a kind of proto-Donna Edwards when Alma Allen primaried Ron Wilson, a truly disgusting DINO who had toadied for Tom DeLay’s redistricting plan in the most racist and offensive ways possible.
The key is looking for the windows when politicians are vulnerable and putting everything we’ve got into squeezing those choke-points. Its about more than just Obama. The House leadership, particularly Steny Hoyer are the ones who led the sell-out.
I agree in many ways with this. I still read the mainstream media to an extent, but am very frustrated as I see it continuing to deteriorate towards “infotainment,” superficiality, shark attacks, missing white girls, and corporate “Republican lite” blather. Sigh.
By the way, a few months ago, I had a chance to talk to Helen Thomas, and boy did she have a lot to say about the decline of serious/citizen-oriented/investigative journalism. I mean, Tim Russert wasn’t perfect (who is?), but he definitely was a professional who worked hard to prepare for each Sunday morning — and it really showed. To me, Tim’s death is yet another sign of the corporate media’s decline. It’s very unfortunate, but thankfully the netroots is picking up some of the slack. Still, I think the ideal for our democracy would be to have a strong traditional media AND a strong “new media.”
I would suggest that many of the Dem candidates are being what I term “willfully obtuse.” They have rushed to embrace what they perceive as the positive aspect of the web, mailing lists and access to supporters and money while hoping to ignore what they see as the downside, the ability of supporters to be direct in holding them accountable.
And the Dems have to be better at all of this than the Republicans, based on what we see today.
This “brouhaha” was evidence of the corporate media at its superficial, clueless worst. In now way, shape, or form did Wes Clark “attack” John McCain’s military service. To the contrary, he said he greatly respected McCain’s service, but simply pointed out that this in and of itself didn’t qualify him to be an effective commander in chief. Unfortunately, the corporate media just went kneejerk into a bash Clark frenzy. And they say the blogosphere is an echo chamber?!? Ha!
We talked about this a little in the book, but always remember that Dean’s campaign made several mistakes that got them to the scream.
1) Dean refused to let his own campaign research him. That meant Dick Gephardt’s campaign new that Dean had gone on TV and denounced the Iowa caucuses before Joe Trippi did.
2) Dean’s team didn’t write an Iowa concession speech. They let him go out there and wing it, speaking only to the people in the room thereby blowing the biggest national opportunity Dean had to speak to the American public. They also gave him the wrong mic, one that cut out the room noise, making it seem that Dean was screaming for no reason instead of struggling to be heard over a very amped up crowd.
Helen Thomas is a champion! It is ironic that truth to power on tv is coming from faux news shows like The Daily Show and Stephen Colbert. What MSM media, tv and print, do you still turn to?
Don’t start me on Russert. May the man RIP and condolences to his family, but let’s not forget that he presided over the most corrupt and empty headed era of American politics — 1991 to 2008.
As they say in the Bible, “by their fruits shall ye know them” and the fruits of Russert’s reign were poison apples — the contract with America, the Clinton impeachment, Bush v Gore, Tom DeLay’s reign, the Dean Scream, the Swift Boats, etc etc. Never forget that Russert had Tom DeLay on the air dozens of times AFTER DeLay was indicted on multiple felony counts. he also played a disgusting and disgraceful role in Plame-gate.
Lowell’s right that Russert’s successors are even worse.
On Race to the WH program, Joe Scarborough tried to exert “peer pressure” on Rachel Maddow for not declaring Obama was flip flopping on commitment with Iraq. He actually asked those who disagreed with her to raise their hands. Then when she laughed, said she cackled like Hillary. Creepy stuff. My tv blew recently, and I have turned to radio and internet and am relieved not to get assaulted with tv MSM. Though do miss Olbermann.
oh, i love what howie is doing. but i just don’t see that ever getting us a majority of in the house. right now, i figure we’ve got just over 30 house dems that have sincerely fought the fisa debacle this year (i’m not counting the shame votes the house leadership orchestrates). it would be great to double that number – but i’m asking about how we can get a majority in the house so that we can get some good leadership. any ideas?
…. and a related question. why doesn’t speaker pelosi get more push back for her role in the fisa debacle? she has been awfully successful in convincing folks that it’s all hoyer’s doing. but from what i’ve seen, it looks like she has hoyer play point, and then she backs him whenever it’s needed.
The Webb campaign showed what a “rag-tag army” of netroots, citizen activists can accomplish. It also showed that it IS possible, although not easy, to integrate the “top down” and “bottom up” effectively. The question is, will current and future campaigns be willing – as Zack Exley puts it – to “put on the makeup,” to really incorporate and integrate the netroots into their campaign structures? With Webb, we were brought in partly out of necessity, partly out of the wisdom of people like Steve Jarding, and partly out of desperation. It was messy, but somehow it worked. Can this be replicated? Well, it almost worked for Paul Hackett, it partly worked for Ned Lamont, it worked for Jon Tester…I could go on.
I think the accountability angle comes as a shock to the candidates and electeds. They are very afraid of the netroots but not because we can hold them accountable but rather because they fear us as an undisciplined angry rabble who are liable to turn on or embarrass any politician who gets too close.
The biggest disconnect IMO is between the elites and the rest of us. The people in the House and Senate haven’t really been impacted as negatively by the Bush/Rove/DeLay era as the rest of us and its hard for them to understand why we’re so upset.
I also can’t believe the public in general.. its apathy about FISA. And the revelation by Sy Hersh that $400,000 from the “gang of 8″ went to Bush at the end of 2007, UNDER A DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED CONGRESS, for covert Iranian operations, when Gates and Pentagon were even discouraging such activity. What is with that?
How do we slow down the Iran war drumbeat? What do you guys think?
I still read my local paper, the Washington Post, plus all the Virginia newspapers as part of my work on http://www.raisingkaine.com. I also read the New York Times, still the best paper in the country as far as I can tell, although definitely flawed. I try to read foreign newspapers like The Guardian, Haaretz, Le Monde, Financial Times, etc. I also read the Wall Street Journal as much as possible…only so many hours in a day. :)
But I think they are afraid of the accountability factor. I think Obama was planning and is planning on “finessing” with some political double-talk. Glenn and Marcy and McJoan jumped into action on the FISA stuff! As Glenn with Olbermann. Wonderful to behold and ammunition to contact the Senate with this week.
Is there anyone currently running that you feel has a good grasp of how to make the netroots work for them?
I know that my conversations with elected officials generally fall into two categories: those who consider themselves part of the uprising (Darcy Burner comes to mind–she’s incredibly responsive to us at Blue America and I feel confident will remain so in office. Donna Edwards as well.) and those who really didn’t contemplate just how engaged we are as a constituency. Robert Wexler’s office asked us to link to petitions on holding hearings and was so stunned by the response we gave him (over 100K signatures in 48 hours).
Keep in mind that we’re living in one of the most corrupt and powerful empires in world history. To think that we can completely overturn the whole power structure of this political system in just a few years is a bit naive.
We’ve made big strides, but the magnitude of the work that desperately, urgently needs to be done to stop the cancerous growth of the national police state or address our energy/global warming nightmare in a real way is enormous.
On a more optimistic note, we don’t need a majority of progressives in the Congress, we just need to make the majority of Democrats more afraid of opposing us than they are of opposing the corporate media and the right-wing.
Hey guys, thanks for doing this. My question has to do with the merging of blogging and traditional news organizations. Paul Krugman and Clive Crook both write great blogs for major news outfits, but I was reading yesterday that the WaPo is looking for a new Executive Editor who will work to blend the online and print editions more. What do you see as far as opportunities and dangers when we have what has been somewhat maverick, non-aligned blogging become more and more brought into the commercial newsroom?
This comment makes me think of the Peter Daou “triangle” – the power potential that can be actualized when the netroots comes together with the “mainstream media” and the political establishment, all pushing in the same direction. That’s powerful. Take away one leg of that triangle, and it’s less powerful. Take away another leg and leave only the netroots, let’s say, and it’s probably not sufficient in terms of force generation capacity to really move a story in a big way. In a way, as filmmaker/activist Eric Byler describes in our book, we’re still like “fleas hoping to leap on the back of the behemoth mammals – the mainstream media.” On the bright side, Eric believes – and I agree with him – that “this is going to continue, we’ll have mammal status soon.” :)
I think Darcy is the netroots candidate of the cycle. Donna Edwards too. One of the weird things though is the way that the best netroots candidates aren’t always the most netroots friendly office holders.
Well, if a candidate crawls inside the Beltway Bubble and thinks we’re all just going to go away and let him/her forget their sworn oath, then they are quite likely to find that indeed, we are an angry (but organized) rabble that will hold them to their oaths AND embarrass the sh*t out of them! With very good reason.
Wow Nate…I didn’t know these key facts about the “Dean Scream” Thanks…I do think we have a much more media and netroots savy candidate with Obama…the techniques and avenues have been honed to a sharp edge since then…
I just hope Obama doesn’t take the edge off his message by doing the SOT (same old thing) by listening to the bobble-heads in DC and in the MSM and his DLC supporters to run another “cautious” campaign…
The jury’s still out…we’re all waiting to see if Obama honors his populist message in the primary…Carl
re iran: H.CON.RES 362 (introduced by ackerman) now has 220 cosponsors and S.RES.580 (introduced by bayh) has 32.
introduced by democrats, supported by democrats.
I’m worried that what we’ll see is less an infusion of wild and maverick bloggers entering the news rooms and more Howie Kurtz’ running blogs with the same old establishment mentality.
It seems like the newspapers are finally realizing that they have to adapt to the new technologies. Ironically I see that as a danger for the netroots. Lets face it, from 2000 to 2005 dozens of powerful new voices emerged online — Jane, Glenn, Markos, Atrios, Stoller, Bowers, Josh Marshall, Jerome, etc etc — and we really haven’t seen anyone able to make that big an impact in the last 3 years.
I think the wild west days of political blogging are over.
Hell yeah!
“What do you see as far as opportunities and dangers when we have what has been somewhat maverick, non-aligned blogging become more and more brought into the commercial newsroom?”
One of the strengths of the blogs is the perception by readers that they are independent, that they have integrity, that they are – key word here – AUTHENTIC. That’s the danger when a blog merges with a corporate (or campaign) entity, that it can lose its perception (and possibly reality) as “authentic.” On the other hand, the fact that the “MSM” is turning to blogs is a sign of success on our part; imitation being the sincerest form of flattery. Also, it opens up the possibility that top-notch bloggers might actually make a living off of their work (yeah, what a concept! lol), but the trick is how to maintain integrity/authenticity. I’d love to hear people’s thoughts on this subject.
Thanks, Selise!
The candidates in my area have gotten better in their acceptance and appreciation for the netroots. It’s the institutions, the local committee and to some extent the state committees that are problematic. My local committee is flat out scared of me and I can’t understand why. I’m so sweet and loveable! ;)
And the clearest indicator that we made an impact this week IMO was that the big Op-eds were split on Obama this week. The Washington Post was egging him on to keep giving us DFH’s the finger on FISA but the NY Times took him to task.
Obama doesn’t read the blogs much, but he does read the NYT and I’m very hopeful that his campaign will adjust and quit playing such a weak hand.
I think that the critical piece that the netroots is missing right now is a reputable in-district lobbying mechanism.
For us to really carry our movement to the level of power that we need, we will need to find better ways to let elected officials understand the importance to their future electability of voting with us.
MoveON is doing a lot of the issue advocacy online and even doing meetups, but we have yet to formulate an effective way to build long-term relationships with members of congress, senators, governors and state legislators. We have the supporters in every district, but until we have the ability to meet with staff, to discuss and help formulate positions we’ll remain too etherial a power to truly impact the way politics gets done in America.
I’d argue that for progressive politics to take the next step we need to integrate the power of organizations like YDA, CAAP and MoveON with the blogs, to get to the point where we get the respect and have the impact we deserve.
Obama’s victory won’t mean anything if the bluedogs and remaining republicans feel free to cut backroom deals with Pelosi and Reid.
It’s time to suit up.
Only trick is that such an organization and coordination will require maybe $5million per year to run nationwide. any thoughts on that?
ActBlue, the online fundraising PAC, has raised more than $56 million dollars
Then why is Obama Sister Souljahing us? Or is only Center Dem money spendable? The Democrats are out raising the GOP in money for the first time in how many years? Why the Netroots have been giving!
I don’t see Obamas college students or African American supporters thinking FISA is a good idea they just are not as vocal as we are so supporting FISA is not a move driven to get votes.
Obama is a lawyer there is noway that he really thinks FISA is a good law.
Nope the only people who want FISA are the phone companies and Bush.
We are competitive in how many Red States that have not gone our way in my lifetime because we oppose the war! Because we believe in the right to make a phone call without the government listening.
Given all these arguments against FISA just who is supporting it in Obama’s campaign and why?
Why do they have so much more influence than the Netroots?
i don’t think we can overturn the power structure – at least not by playing according the power structure’s rules. that’s why i was pushing back on your answer re: howie. and i don’t see how we can ever make politicians more afraid of us than the corporations that control far more $$ than we do. for example, just about the entire blogosphere runs on corporate ad revenue nowadays. imo, we are very venerable.
maybe a fracture within the elite would do it, but at the moment i don’t see that happening.
bottom line – i think we need to ally ourselves with the outside the establishment, outside the electoral politics movements to give us and them more leverage.
was just looking for more ideas than the ones i’ve seen (or thought of) so far…
Tom Daschle.
He’s one of Obama’s mentors and big powers in the campaign.
He was also the Senate majority leader when all the eavesdropping was started.
I’ve often wondered if Daschle doesn’t have a very personal interest in keeping the history of what really happened at the highest levels of the U.S. Government in 2001/2002 buried very deeply.
This is one of those double-edged swords for me. Lord knows I’d like to see a living wage from my work, but one of the things that I fear is the complacency of becoming the establishment.
Not to name names out of school, but I know of a prominent blogger/netroots guy who has told candidates that he’s endorsed that he is okay if the candidate has to distance himself away from the blogger and the blog, because in his mind, it’s all about winning elections.
Me, I don’t buy into that so much. I’m a big believer that if I am putting in my effort and money to back a candidate, that candidate cannot be afraid to stand up for the ideals that brought us together in the first place. I think at least for C&L, we want to champion ideals more so than candidates.
I don’t want us to become part of the establishment, I want to see candidates understand that they represent more than the special interests inside the Beltway and I’m not convinced that our growing “respectability” actually assists in that concept.
What does this mean?
Perhaps I’m naive, but I firmly believe that the electoral system is the shortest route to power. It worked for the religious right from 1964 to 2004. The “fuck the system” route didn’t work so well for the left from 1968 to 2000.
Totally agree. The success of the Clark draft movement or the Webb campaign wasn’t a result of a bunch of disembodied electrons (that happen to like eating nachos – lol) getting together. Instead, it was citizen activists using all the tools at their disposal, both online and in the “real world” of flesh and blood, to affect change. Personally, I did a heck of a lot of blogging but I also canvassed, phone banked, handed out flyers at Metro stops and festivals, marched in parades, etc., etc. During the Draft Webb movement and afterwards, there were some amazing people like Chris Ambrose who worked their contacts with Democratic Party activists and officials to kick some serious a**. For instance, we never would have won that St. Patrick’s Day straw poll, which Steve Jarding says marked a crucial turning point in the campaign, without people actually talking to people they knew and persuading them. The blogging helped too, but it was only one piece of the puzzle…
Our California electeds still operate in the print era: DiFi gets a daily clipped digest of the state’s papers, very similar to the one Nate put together in the mid-nineties and has a rule about who’ll she will meet with: no bloggers.
Nate, you’ve done extensive work at the state level in Texas, so I think this may be proper to direct at you. Currently, there’s a Beltway attitude of the netroots being these untamed, undisciplined upstarts, and on national campaigns, that does tend to detract from the influence we can wage. Do you think that perhaps the way for the netroots to gain more credibility is to establish ourselves more at a local and state level? Will movement building in this kind of bottom-up fashion help us, or will we perpetually be viewed as the outsiders?
We can advocate for what we believe in, we can push our candidates towards the ideal, but ultimately we’re not gonna win ‘em all. Still, we’ll be a gazillion times better off with Barack Obama as president than with Johnny McSame! :)
Music to my ears, Nate, though I wish our presumptive nominee grasped the “ethical” issue, more than the politically strategic one.
With the Bush administration, there are so many fresh hells we are learning about each week, so many fronts, such incompetence and lack of accountability and monitoring on a grand scale. And we must stay focused on the most effective way to channel our outrage and activism.
And the hypnotic control of corporate owned MSM on the A.D.D. citizenry. And the power of the sound byte/image where one scream, one haircut, one missing flag pin, one windsurfing video, etc. can plant a permanent seed of bias in a viewer’s mind to keep on growing.
And the Bush administration and MSM, with everything oversimplified, makes thoughtful critical thinking cause people’s eyes and ears to glaze over.
oh, i’m NOT saying abandon the electoral system – just to work with those who have. that’s how the ftaa got stopped, for example.
i’m advocating for an alliance to make both stronger. not for one or the other. pincer moves – insiders and outsiders working together.
it think it worked for the religious right because the corporate faction needed a people faction. i don’t think the religious right would have gotten very far without that alliance. do you see it differently?
Without a doubt. In fact, since 2005 we’ve seen an enormous growth in the power and impact of local/state blogs and netroots activism.
We’ve also seen many many local political operatives and electeds get comfortable with the online tools — email, blogs, meetups, etc — and that’s not always progressive.
Its much harder to use the blogs to build momentum for a progressive primary challenger than it was just a few years ago. In many cases the most widely read local bloggers have political/business relationships with the power structure and the incumbents will have many vocal and nasty supporters coming on the blogs, turning the campaign into an ugly pie fight that builds little momentum.
ok, that makes sense.
I think the religious right rose in part due to the alliance with the biz community, but I also think they very often bit the hand that fed them.
Some things can happen on a much more limited budget such as this tool developed by Blue America and this one as well
Things are being done and organized but as we are often reminded, it’s a marathon not a sprint.
Tom Daschle.
Thanks…now I have a target!
That’s an excellent and important point. During the Webb campaign, we issued a strong statement supporting net neutrality. I think it’s worth quoting, especially since I wrote it. :)
“The internet represents democracy in action and must be protected. More than perhaps any other medium, the internet provides an open and free marketplace of ideas and speech, as our founding fathers intended in the first amendment to our Constitution. The internet has been open and free since its inception, and it should remain open and free moving forward. Just as importantly, the blogosphere provides strong checks and balances on the corporate media and on governmental power. This is particularly crucial at at time of serious overreach by the executive branch, as we now are experiencing. Finally, there is a fundamental fairness issue at stake here. Given that the internet is increasingly indispensible to educational and career advancement in today’s economy, it is essential that we keep it accessible and affordable to all Americans – not just to the wealthiest corporations and citizens. Allowing big telecom companies to provide preferential service to large content providers over the “little guy” is both wrong and undemocratic. For all these reasons, I strongly support net neutrality.”
C&L is AWESOME. Thank you!
Yee gods, that’s awful but not surprising.
IMO one of the reasons our Democratic congressional majority has been so feeble is that most of the leadership has been in office for 30+ years. Pelosi and company don’t even understand the mechanics of how Gingrich used cable TV to drive a national message and run over them. They certainly don’t seem to understand how to leverage the enormous changes that Gingrich and DeLay wrought on the committee structure. If Pelosi wanted to, she could bring the whole apparatus to a screaming halt over any issue of her choosing. She either doesn’t understand the power at her command or she’s afraid to use it.
C&L Rocks!
One of the netroots techniques that I think have made even long-established politicians sit up and take notice is that of the “blogswarm.” Christy here at FDL has certainly been at the forefront of encouraging Firepups to swarm the halls of Congress over FISA. You’ve said that Obama does not read the blogs, but how would you suggest the netroots get the attention of our representatives when it comes to core principles like this?
:) Thanks. John Amato’s created a fascinating community and I’m just grateful to be part of it.
I hate to say it but I think that Speaker Pelosi is afraid to use the power because of fear that someone on TV/cable shows might say mean things about her.
And it pains me to think that about her.
Well said. I sense there is a technological and legal race by the corporate giants to stifle this incredible forum. And if the mainstream citizenry is sleeping through FISA, will they end up being myopic about the loss of the internet freedom, too. Also, the internet makes the global village more of a global village. US news censored by the MSM puppeteers can’t prevent say the Guardian from using a critical eye and enlightening American readers. Humanitarian issues and patterns emerge. Economic flexing (corporate rape) impact on the entire world. Global warming issues, etc.
same argument holds i think for nancy pelosi and jay rockefeller. they may be very interested in keeping their role in approving the fisa violations hidden. same thing for bush’s policy of torture.
Nate and Lowell, you’ve talked about how the netroots can push fundraising and supporting/challenging candidates through their efforts, but one more item strikes me necessary for true change: candidate recruitment, especially netroots members stepping up as candidates themselves.
It’s nice to have candidates who appreciate and value the netroots, but that’s different from having netroots folks themselves step up and put their names before the voters.
What have you seen, thus far, in how the netroots functions for candidate recruitment?
I think Daou’s analysis in the Triangle still applies — aggressively look to combine netroots energy with media coverage and elected officials speaking out.
The netroots plus Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd is very powerful for example.
Josh Marshall’s use of blogswarms to drive coverage in local media that he then amplifies to a national audience was a big part in making the Tom DeLay story reach critical mass. Look for any corporate media outlet you can reach and use that coverage to get more coverage in other angles.
Its like wrestling — if your opponent is defending their legs, attack the upper body, if they’re defending their head, dive for the legs. That is, if you’re blocked out of coverage in your local media, see if you can get coverage from the national blogs that could spill over to Roll Call and the Hill and from there back to the local media. If you’re blocked from the national media, see if you can’t get coverage on a local TV station or paper.
You and Teddy got a great insight a lot of older Dems don’t understand Technology or that this is a change election and the old rules don’t apply because we are in Crisis mode, they are still fighting the last war!
We have to replace our current political Leadership in the House and Senate with people who get technology, get why we fight on the issues and of course know Congressional and Senate procedure and protocol.
So do you got any names?
This is probably the weakest part of our game thus far. Howie and Blue America have certainly led the way but we’ve all got to contribute. I think that people should all be active at their local level and one of the key things is to make sure that every race is contested. This is also a great way to build our bench of candidates.
As to Pelosi, I think she knows perfectly well what she could and should and can and ought to do. I think she is incredibly self-serving and is just all about self-thinking, “Hey, Pa, look what I did!” I think that most of the fools in congress are just so glad to have a place at the table that they would do anything to not give up their seat. Has nothing to do with serving the people……it has to do with themselves being served. DiFi, for sure. Boxer, I’m still cutting some slack. Sometimes she really shines. DiFi never. Pelosi rarely.
Thanks I’m now making a list checking it twice going to.. .
Worthwhile guidance. thanks.
“What have you seen, thus far, in how the netroots functions for candidate recruitment?”
Well, I’ve personally been part of two successful “draft” movements – Wes Clark and Jim Webb. :) Also, as we discuss in the book, Ned Lamont and Jon Tester were encouraged by bloggers to run. Still, we have a long way to go; currently, candidate recruitment remains primarily a matter for party insiders more than for the netroots. I think we need to focus a lot more energy on this area.
This actually leads me to one of my personal pet peeves. We’re referring to the netroots in this discussion primarily as part of the liberal blogosphere, but the right has their own netroots as well, and while they’ve not been as successful perhaps in promoting candidates, they’ve certainly been incredibly successful in pushing media narratives that then echo through the MSM.
It’s a rare day when something that is driven by Josh Marshall ends up on repeated airings on the cable news, but we’ve seen nearly weekly evidence of that with Drudge and even the Dan Rather/TANG controversy.
Do you have any ideas of how we can get better about pushing our narratives?
We in the netroots also need to remember that any electoral gains in the Senate and House will, for their colleagues, accrue to the benefit of the leadership. So, for all the gains we make in better Democrats, current House and Senate members will see it as more Democrats, validating the course their leadership has taken.
Sadly I feel like the events of 2007/2008 have pushed bigger and bigger wedges between the netroots and even the most progressive congressionals.
Here’s George Allen’s (former) netroots coordinator, Jon Henke, on this subject:
“I believe the Democrats “got” the Netroots in 2006, while Republicans did not get it at all. In 2007, Republicans are just now at the same place Democrats were in late 2002/early 2003: they know this whole “new media” thing is important and they know they should try to figure it out, but it’s still a bit of a mystery to most of them. It will take some time for the establishment to grow comfortable with the new communications medium.”
http://www.netrootsrising.com/…..-endeavor/
Why? I’m missing something.
Well keep in mind that the symbiosis between the right wing blogs and the corporate media goes back at least to the Drudge Report 1990s. They were the first to seize on the new medium — Sore/Loserman was coined on the FreeRepublic after all. But their top-downism is also the source of their weakness.
Sadly I think the corporate legacy media is too rotten to be really worth contesting. Their credibility is utterly spent. Unfortunately they still reach more people and influence the debate more than any alternative. And lies still travel across the country before the truth gets its boots on.
Ok how do we grow the netroots how do we get more people to read political blogs besides word of mouth which is just speaking to the already converted.
How do we reach Hispanics, African Americans, kids not going to college, Rednecks etc.
Chris in Paris at America blog is always raving about how cheap the net is in France would lowering cost if we follow their business model on the net help make it easier?
Would promoting cheaper computers help?
Does anyone have any other suggestions?
Although the Main Stream Media’s lack of coverage on the issues I’m sure is helping us.
For example I get better ideas about stocks here than I do watching the business channels.
I think the MoveOn censure resolution divided the netroots from several of the congress-critters we had done the most to elect — McNerney, et al.
True and scary point. Drudge seems to lead the drum beats.
I was thinking as I was reading how much I got involved by blogging at John Edwards now defunct website, or rather just the shell left. But I felt very close to the choir and in tune with their perspectives, and though we worshipped Edwards and his wife, I felt a disconnect to my candidate, too. We certainly had his back… but he was so busy out there politicking… something was missing. I think Edwards and Trippi missed out on something important in terms of their small but PASSIONATE followers. Want to ponder this more. Sorry to be vague.
this one i think is very tough because one of the reasons the right wing narratives stick is that they keep repeating them regardless of facts, new information or even reality.
if we want to stay attached to reality, then our narratives will be constantly changing as our understanding and knowledge grows. so our narratives (if we’re honest) will suffer from the lack of repetition. but our narratives are stronger because they help explain the real world… at least that is my hope.
But ultimately I think Edwards’ disconnect came about because he had changed so much in such a short time. The John Edwards of 2007 was so different from the JE of 2003 that it was hard to believe it was the same guy.
I think you’ve answered your own question in a way. The key is to find informational niches that are being ignored by the corporate media.
The African-American blogging community has made huge strides in the past couple of years and the key is to forge alliances when there are candidacies that have cross-over appeal — Nutter in Philadelphia, Edwards, and of course, Obama.
Actually, this is something that I’d like to see Nate and Lowell address, because they’ve actually worked with candidates.
My sense is that the Beltway advisors to candidates are constantly pushing people to move to the middle to attract the largest number of potential voters. And in an old school campaign, there is a certain sense to it.
However, in the age of the netroots, I’d posit that this is actually counterindicated, because the metric changes. Realistically, you are looking at 50% or less turnout for votes, right? But the netroots are comprised of politically engaged and committed voters…the turnout rate is significantly higher. So the axiom of dancing with the one that brung you seems to make more sense to me, because those are the ones committed to getting you elected, not the vast number of apathetic masses who aren’t paying attention.
Yeah, but we believed. And what I fear about Obama, he is new on the learning curve and those pressures and seductions. Give me the “sad” but “wiser” politician… who got religion and wants redemption by fighting the political bullies. Still loyal to Edwards as you can see.
But I don’t think Edwards and Trippi got the “momentum” with their followers. And the potential critical mass building of new people interested. Though I do not know the real reason he unplugged when he did.
“Ok how do we grow the netroots how do we get more people to read political blogs besides word of mouth which is just speaking to the already converted.
How do we reach Hispanics, African Americans, kids not going to college, Rednecks etc.”
This is a very important question. I think part of it is government investment in broadband infrastructure across the country. We are so far behind Japan and other nations in this area, it’s really pitiful. It’s also a matter of education – the schools should be teaching students how to gather information and examine it critically in a 21st century, “new media,” internet(s) era. This should be part of an overall education aimed a producing citizens who know how their government works and how to influence it. Right now, there’s way too much mindless “teach to the test” and too little time spent on producing citizens who can think for themselves and question authority. Perhaps that’s intentional?
Thanks, Nicole. That verbalizes part of what I was feeling.
Re Obama, my favorite saying for him is to learn to let go of the support he doesn’t have, and grab hold of the support he does.
I agree that we’ve got a long way to go on this.
Your book’s description of blogs encouraging Tester and Webb to run was well done, but that’s a far cry from having the blogs encourage one of their own into the races.
It was important for the cause of women’s rights to have men in power who were supportive of women. That’s very different from having women in power themselves. Gays in the 70s were pleased to have pro-gay rights candidates to vote for, but having openly gay Harvey Milk elected was a much different thing.
Bloggers will be listened to in the halls of power when bloggers are there not as guests or supplicants or friends or consultants, but as residents themselves.
Subpoena Karl Rove’s blackberry and print the names of all the GOP talking heads who everyday somehow all have the same thing to say, on the same issues which all the Networks and Newspapers decide is the news today.
Someone gives the righty blogs a story *cough* Karl Rove.
Somehow all the MSM media outlets decide to cover the same stories on the same day. Plus the talking heads all have the same thing to say about it.
Maybe we can document the collusion if we can’t get a subpoena.
If we expose the talking heads as shills, implicate MSM management and then talk about taking away their public license to broadcast because they are in effect giving the GOP free advertising disguised as news during a Presidential election year.
I think its just a really bad habit of our party as a whole. We tend to be rational rather than emotional. And we have an awful habit of looking at candidates as products and issue positions as features. The GOP understands the power of emotion and the way that the personal appeal of “strong but wrong” leaders will outweigh differences on particular issues.
The key IMO is to find more Democratic leaders with fighting temperments.
Digg one for the digg of it….104 comments and no one has dugg this post until I got back…. youse guys can do better than that… I really doesn’t hurt to digg a post first…
Thanks very much for coming by today, Nate and Lowell. I’m headed to Amazon to order this book right now. Great Salon, Nicole — and thanks as always to Bev!
Thanks so much for everyone who took a break from their holiday weekend to talk politics with us!
It’s a balancing act, no question. On the right, for instance, the passionate “rag tag army” people have tended to be the Christian/social right wing. The problem is, most independents, Democrats, and even many pro-business/libertarian-leaning Republicans are not comfortable with the Christian right. This leads to a tension, obviously, and strains in the Reagan Republican coalition that has somehow managed to hold together since 1980.
On the left, there’s a similar tension, although perhaps more diffuse and not as clear cut as on the right. As far as Jim Webb is concerned, he mainly stuck to his three themes and the proverbial “high road,” while the netroots did its thing. Overall, it was a division of labor that worked, in part because the Allen campaign and the “rightosphere” was not particularly effective in driving a wedge in there (or in tying Webb closer to his more liberal supporters than he might have been comfortable with).
Mark Halperin and John Harris already admit that “Matt Drudge rules our world.” I’m not sure how much more shame you can hope for than that admission against interests, and they parlayed it into a best-seller!
moveon alienated me when they took the vote between Barack and Hillary and JRE was still in the running. ignored him. I sent them an email, “et tu, moveon” since MSM was also ignorning Edwards. Charlie Rose would have guests on to talk about the fight between HRC and BO and IGNORE Edwards. Being disenfranchised was a fast education to MSM bias.
It was fascinating to watch the Edwards blogsite when he suspended and we clung on for a while, though as some people began to drift to HRC and BO … accusations of “troll” sightings occurred. Natural breakup of the coalition.
Right now, too, I worry that BO has indicated a certain “ageism” that includes disdain for 60s activists. Let’s also not lose the lessons of “sadder but wiser” liberals, either.
I second that motion. :) Thanks everybody, this has been a lot of fun! Take care, and keep the netroots rising! – Lowell
As we come to the close of this Book Salon -
Nate, Lowell, Thank you for stopping by the Lake today and spending the afternoon with us.
Nicole, Thank you for Hosting this great Book Salon.
Everyone – I recommend this book, the link is above.
All – thank you.
thanks nicolle, lowell and especially nate! i don’t think i’ve ever had so many of my questions answered in a book salon before. very much appreciated. lots of good food for thought.
Again, this is one of the things that kills me about the right and the left. The “rag-tag army” of Christians in the right are able to demand that the power brokers on their side kow-tow to them, no matter how uncomfortable they are (think McCain and Hagee/Parsley).
We on the left, who polls have shown are not far off the pulse of the majority of Americans when you strip the labels of left/right off the issues, get dismissed and ignored by our candidates.
My hope is that the netroots brings us the ability to find candidates that have a better understanding of this dynamic and bring us to the table as much as those on the right have with the Moral Majority types.
Perhaps there is a third reason Pelosi does not use the power available to her; It may be that she is far too complicit in too many things, and does not want nor wish to use such power to expose herself.
Might this not ‘account’ for the ‘odd’ behavior of many in Congress, even and especially those with the most power?
Thanks, Bev, and thanks to you, Nate and Lowell, for sparking such a great discussion.
It was an honor being here.
It would be one thing if Drudge were right but the News is to inform not spread GOP rumors. If the TV news can’t handle that then lets take their public license to broadcast away and start giving them to Lefty Blogs because we are so much better at the news than O’Reily, Rush or Drudge.
Public license to broadcast is given to inform the public not indoctrinate them in return for doing that license holders may broadcast whatever shows they can sell commericals for.
oh, i think she’s complicit. but i’ve also got a fourth reason. speaker pelosi does use the power that is available to her. she just uses it in ways we don’t like.
i have to admit it aggravates me that she is excused from accountability by reason of her “weakness” – even to the point of people saying that hoyer is the real power. well, do you think that excuse would work if speaker nancy was speaker robert? i don’t.
this one i think is very tough because one of the reasons the right wing narratives stick is that they keep repeating them regardless of facts, new information or even reality.
So lets focus on GOP claims about the economy and business because the GOP has made so many claims and they have all proven to be untrue.
Plus these claims are verifiable unlike GOP claims that Bush talks to God, or that Iran is the new enemy, or Ossama does not matter.
If we focus on one section of the GOP’s reputation like the economy we can unravel the entire quilt of GOP lies.
Harry Reid in the Senate also respects GOP holds on bills but not Democratic holds on bills!
I’ve heard that happens (hey, there).
I don’t know, though, if sacrificing your political principles is necessarily part of being paid to advocate or if people just accept that it is because it’s been the most successful model so far.
After all, Molly made a living. I know nobody else is Molly, but it does mean it can happen.
I can but agree, selise.
;~D
Come on people Digg
I wrote some stuff I’m proud of today:)
{{Julia}}
Rereading that makes me sound like such a DFH. ;)
I think there are some bloggers who can get more mainstream exposure and maintain their independence, but I think the seduction of being part of the in crowd is very hard to overcome. I can think of one liberal blogger who made me bang my head on the desk for going on TV and praising Chris Matthews and Tim Russert for their election coverage. It was obvious he did so to get back on TV, and that kind of selling out of the principles to join the mainstream–while potentially more lucrative than blogging–bothers me greatly.
David Neiwert upstairs!
Bush’s Grand Moff Tarkin Aims Death Star At Forestlands
It would seem that Liberalism’s best friend is still,
reality.
The reality of the SUFFERING caused by the Rightwing GOP (with help from conservative Dems and cowardly Dems) policies.
When gas is $8Buck$ a gallon, and many food market shelves are bare, and millions upon millions of people who have never known true want, are
pushed into a state of poverty and want and helplessness,
Conservatism will die.
If we Liberals had our way, it would not come to that, but the Establishment and Ruling Elite are all Conservative, and are determined to hold back change and progress.
And so, Conservatism sows the seeds of its own destruction—Perhaps even by violent means, if the economic and social deterioration of America is allowed (Forced) to continue by the Conservative Royalists who run the U.S.
America may just possibly be screwed.
But Conservatism is DEFINITELY screwed.
Yeah, I know. But people do it – I think it just goes under the radar while the unfortunate examples sort of stick in the memory.
Exactly and that’s why our focus should have been on Nancy Pelosi who brought the damn FISA bill back to the floor to be voted on and not against Barack Obama. Every time the Netroots comes apart & splinters when Barack or someone else does something on our side we don’t approve of, we weaken ourselves. I think the problem Barack is having right now is every time he opens the door or picks up the phone, a Clinton is there! I don’t like the idea of them being a part of his campaign. I see their effect already and I wouldn’t be surprised if Hillary & Nancy talk frequently.
Don’t give up on Barack. We need to go after the Nancy Pelosi’s and the Harry Reids of our party to save it from itself!
Lowell & Nate above at #16 & #17 said it best. ;-)