It has been a slog, hasn't it (4.00 / 4)

In short, it means acting in a manner that demonstrates self-respect for, and belief in, the progressive netroots. In the end, that is the only sort of respect we can ever hope to achieve.

Nope.

Because internal respect inevitably yields external respect. At first it started small, with smart reporters realizing there was something to write about. Then, smart consultants realized that there was a reason why they were reading about us. Next, other consultants followed the early-adapter herd. And then, some candidates who knew no other began winning. Finally -- and it will happen -- the old guard will realize we can help them if we are considered part of the strategy instead of a tactic. That is the arc of utility.

The arc of respect follows an election or so behind the utility curve. It will be a while before it happens with the lazy big dogs, but as we get a seat at more tables and if the netroots does have game (it does), we will see it as a trailing indicator of utility.

If you don't believe me, visit the archeological record when a seat at the table was a dining room table for a 50 state candidate who lost, but in a district we won the next cycle. A candidate who some bloggers referred to as "(D-Netroots)" and the next nominee raised almost twice as much on actblue (with the Bucks County Dems now using ActBlue).

And when it comes to respect, the reflection after the election has been when the netroots traditionally ratchets back gains. Ask DNC Chair Roemer.  

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:47:59 AM CDT

How many battalions do you have? (4.00 / 2)

To paraphrase that famous quote about the limits of the Pope's moral authority, how many battalions do the netroots have?

You say that "netroots fueled challenges are infrequent nearly to the point of being struck by lightning".  Why is that so?  Sure, US Senate races are expensive, but why not focus on campaigns where $20k and 20 volunteers can make the difference between viability and obscurity?  Why not focus on getting challengers on the ballot to all incumbents (including Senators and even Democratic Presidents) who sell out Democratic principles?  The incumbent may win, but may be less inclined to sell out the base next time.  There were several missed opportunities this election cycle where good challengers dropped out and probably could have been encouraged to stay in had the netroots backed them (take, for example, former Astronaut Jay Buckey, who -- with his focus on energy policy -- could have made the NH Senate race really interesting and even had he lost could have brought some really innovative ideas into the debate).  I first learned about Jay Buckey here on Open Left in a post by Matt but then didn't hear much about him from this site after Shaheen got in.

Why not try to create tools that will allow low-budget campaigns to gain traction against incumbents or other well-funded opponents?  It's not what the DC insider class is interested in talking about (IIRC, one of the first questions DC types ask of each other is "who do you work for" and naming some longshot candidate is not the path to respect) so if insider cocktail party buzz is what you're after then it's probably not what you want to pursue.  But if building the bench, testing tactics, and demonstrating power is the goal then it could be a good strategy.


Voter Genome Project

---

by: Ron Turiello @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:22:59 AM CDT

The netroots has been successful. (0.00 / 0)

On the media.

Simply by showing visibility and being interested in watching television the netroots exerts influence on the networks.  Instead of feeling surrounded by a vast rightwing machine in a rightwing country the media now feels tugged between two sides.

That being said I think the netroots has also been successful at getting the politicians it wants.  Because without the netroots Hillary would probably be our nominee instead.

In other words the netroots does agree on most things and thats where the netroots exerts influence.  

It however does not talk about the things it agrees on because that would be boring.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

---

by: TerraFF @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:28:47 AM CDT

Maybe there is an argument to be made (4.00 / 1)

that the netroots has, in a loose, data-cloud kind of way, nudged the political discourse to the left. Someone smart with a better grasp of history might be able to make that argument...for me it's just a vague sensation, a tingling in the old cortex.

---

by: bluesteel @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:40:45 AM CDT

Good post, a few thoughts: (4.00 / 3)

1. Money, money, money: You're right at this point conservative dems don't fear the netroots, but I think you and Matt are on the right track with Bush-do approach. There's a lot of money in the netroots and a habit of giving. We need to mobilize and help to defeat big-name conservative dems. If they fear our money, they respect us. It's the AIPAC model, and it works.

2. Economic populism: the Netroots needs to grow as the Internet does, which it can do by stressing economic issues. Some of the netroots causes, however important, like FISA, don't have appeal beyond the so-called creative class base. I don't see as much potential as you do in "creative class" activism--doesn't seem like a mass movement to me. There's a class war going on (with 90 percent of the country on the losing end) and if we're not focusing on bread and butter issues, we're rendering ourselves irrelevant. We need to be more like the AFL-CIO and less like the ACLU. (A related problem is that the most prominent bloggers aren't progressive on economic issues. Leading lights like Kos, Josh Marshall, and Yglesias are "free" traders. There's not much to do about this except challenge them and expose them, but there's virtual Omerta among leading bloggers--that's a problem, because it prevents the netroots from forming an ideological core.)

3. Support Candidates Who Support Us: Here is where I repeat my complaint about the lack of support for Edwards in the netroots during the primary. He took progressive stands, used progressive rhetoric, and identified with the movement, yet the sphere sat on the fence until it was too late to make a difference. That's no way to gain respect from pols not inclined to support us and our issues. Having watched Obama neutralize the netroots despite defying it time and again, Mark Warner and other non-progressives will do the same next time around--unless we rally early behind a progressive candidate.

---

by: david mizner @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:23:53 AM CDT

Did Edwards .. (0.00 / 0)

Here is where I repeat my complaint about the lack of support for Edwards in the netroots during the primary. He took progressive stands, used progressive rhetoric, and identified with the movement, yet the sphere sat on the fence until it was too late to make a difference.

really suffer from a lack of support among the netroots?  I thought he was the most popular candidate here until he dropped out, or at least until Obama won Iowa.  His problem was one of circumstances ... as much as I rooted for Edwards .. I know his road was made a lot tougher when both Obama and Clinton entered in the race .. since it was obvious that the TradMed were going to cover those two in a big way

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:13:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Edwards (4.00 / 2)

I recall the netroots going something like Edwards, Obama and then Hillary. Indeed, here's a Kos 2007 straw poll showing Edwards/Obama/Clinton 39/21/11.

This was a unique situation that didn't work in our favor. I think some progressives didn't trust Edwards, because his story didn't quite compute. Others, once exposed to them, fell in love with the idea of the first black president or first female president -- it's not as if either of them lacked charisma. This situation is not likely to repeat itself (on the same scale) in the future.

I guarantee you that Mark Warner won't have nearly the same level of adulation in the netroots Obama does, nor the same loyalty Hillary inspires.

Conventional wisdom in the netroots is that the problem with Edwards was a lack of media traction. Was that simply because he wasn't black or female? Was it because he was progressive?

---

by: RapsodiaStellare @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:25:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

A little bit of both (0.00 / 0)

Obama inspired a young generation who were tired of the establishment. Edwards, the defeated 2004 VP nominee, was the establishment, Hillary defined it. When Obama won in Iowa, that was the end. Hillary represented the establishment, Obama the change, and the party fought from there.

Had Edwards won Iowa, who knows what would've happen. It's possible the youth would've just given up at that point, it would've been an Edwards vs. Clinton race, a progressive vs. moderate race that Clinton probably would've won since Edwards might have lacked the youth movement Obama had.

As we've discovered, this election isn't about issues, never was.  

---

by: dfr1417 @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:29:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good thing, too (0.00 / 0)

If Edwards were on the Dem. ticket his skirt-chasing would have sunk their chances.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 09:32:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's besides the point (0.00 / 0)

We're talking about the principle.

---

by: david mizner @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 09:49:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I hope that's sarcasm (0.00 / 0)

Because if Bill Clinton taught us anything, its that cheating on your wife trumps "principle" in DC.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 09:54:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

At the risk of revisiting all the old arguments... (0.00 / 0)

Edwards was the clear fave of the sphere's rank and file, but no big bloggers (who, despite Chris's claim that it's a leaderless movement, matter) backed him till right before Iowa for reasons that'd been evident for months. This dynamic played out across the left--at liberal pubs like the Nation and, to some degree in the labor movement--as groups and individual refused to pick among the candidates.

Granted, it was a unique set of circumstances, with the white male candidate with a moderate image running to the left of the black candidate and the female candidate--if it'd been Feingold instead of Edwards, there would've been no such ambivalence--but it should've been clear to everyone that Edwards was running the strongest progressive campaign, especially on bread and butter issues.

I'm not saying that Edwards was ideal or that there weren't good reasons not to back him, I'm saying those reasons should've been outweighed by the importance of the progressive movement backing candidates who choose to run as progressives. Time and again during the primary, Obama made clear he wasn't running as a progressive (much less a netroots progressive)--most notably in his move rightward on Iraq--yet there was little price to pay. We can't be surprised that Obama doesn't care what we say now after running away from progressives during the primary with impunity.

---

by: david mizner @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 10:14:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well boo hoo (4.00 / 1)

We didn't like the phony who cheated on his wife.

Please forgive us for our sound judgement.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

---

by: TerraFF @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:39:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

If Edwards had fought against the war (4.00 / 2)

from the beginning and Obama had supported it, then it would have been obvious who the "progressive" was. But Obama was the only one who took a stand against the Iraq invasion in 2002/2003. Later, Edwards positioned himself as the progressive candidate, but it wasn't clear how much this rested on principle and how much on political posturing, just as it is difficult now to know how much of a progressive Obama is. The netroots ambivalence reflects the difficulty in sorting all this out.

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:02:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The netroots is the grassroots online (4.00 / 1)

To the extent that grassroots have power/respect, then "we" have power/respect. Jan Schakowsky and her husband Robert Cremer created or were early influences in the local Citizen Action. She parlayed that into direct political power when the opportunity of Sidney Yates retirement came along. So often the grassroots and by extension the netroots can become springboards for individuals to attaining respect/power. But once there the connection back is voluntary and informal at best.

The netroots is a wider faster grassroots in some respects. It is also a medium that attempts to compete with the MSM for respect/power. As the old grassroots begin to intelligently use the new tool of the netroot medium then will our power/respect be enhanced.

Fifteen years ago I saw a potential with computers to do some things not possible with the old paper and telephone grassroot networks. With computers came the ability to quickly assimilate and calculate complex relationships and opinions. We see some of that power being used now commercially within social network software. So and so wants to be your friend because you and they have such and such common friends.

When Soapblox came available I very much hoped that it would or could be morphed in the direction of social networking for the purposes of collecting opinion and creating natural lines of leadership. Therein lies the direction of netroot power and respect. When Chris Bowers can say how many of us agree with him on position x and take that number and his formalized position as leader around a position to a Jan Schakowsky, then might she give him some respect and recognize his power derived via a formal structural power medium.

Jeff Wegerson

---

by: wegerje @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:00:40 AM CDT

Local Issues, Local Media, and Local Politicians (4.00 / 5)

Chris,

Your analysis is convincing, and I trust you have a better understanding of the national netroots than I do, anyways. But what about local netroots efforts?

Here in Texas -- and especially at Burnt Orange Report -- we have a lot to hang our hat on. We knocked comedian Kinky Friedman from a legitimate contender to an also-ran in the '06 Governor's race. We've raised over $70,000 through our state "TexBlog PAC" for state House candidates, making us easily one of the 7 or 8 largest Democratic PACs in the state (all run on volunteer time). We have the eye of local media and opinion makers, permeating at least some of the traditional thought structures of local politicians. And when the Texas caucuses met at a few hundred county conventions at the end of March, we had more accountable and more accurate totals to report than the Associated Press.

Moreover, we're active in the communities. Our publisher and editor are helping run one of the largest county coordinated campaigns in our state's history. One of our writers just broke a story about how state officials screwed up the management and preparation for Hurricane Ike (a story few are covering). Personally, I'm doing work while I'm in grad school helping frame issues and policies for my former boss, who was one of the Minority Leaders of the State House.

And our story isn't unique, within Texas or around the country. The netroots effectiveness is strong from the ground up, just like a grassroots movement should be.

Finally -- we count on sites like Open Left, Daily Kos, Swing State, etc. to provide us with ideas about the big picture (like this post), as well as the best political analysis. I take a lot of my cues from this site, especially, on any number of important issues.

I sensed a slightly disappointed (or at least frustrated) tone in the post. We're doing well -- keep up the faith!

--Phillip Martin
Senior Adviser, Burnt Orange Report

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:10:07 AM CDT

Two Way Communication (4.00 / 1)

Statements like this:

"Finally -- we count on sites like Open Left, Daily Kos, Swing State, etc. to provide us with ideas about the big picture (like this post), as well as the best political analysis. I take a lot of my cues from this site, especially, on any number of important issues. "

From people like you, need to be seen on those sites more regularly. It gives some "tangible" reality to the obvious effort expended by those posting regularly and with the intention (hope?) of having some beneficial impact, no matter how small. Its positive feed-back and its nutrient that will help self-respect to florish.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:16:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Duly Noted (0.00 / 0)

That is a habit I need to develop more. Thanks.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:22:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

ditto (0.00 / 0)

I was going to add my own comment like this one, but why repeat what you've said?  The city just to my north (Somerville, MA) has an extremely active, netroots-fueled DFA chapter which just yesterday won a write-in campaign, 55-45.  They're now something like 7-for-10 in local elections in the last couple of years, and you better believe local politicians are paying attention. In many cases, at the local level, the netroots becomes small enough that it can be represented ably by a single community group, which can then generate respect, complete with components of "who", "how", and "or else".

---

by: Shai Sachs @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 08:53:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Explaining the Risks and Rewards (4.00 / 1)

Dealing with the netroots is a risky endeavor and with rewards that most politios don't understand.  I feel like I have spent some amount of time walking the border between campaigns, grassroots and netroots.  There is not enough mutual understanding there.

The easiest thing for a would be netroots activist to do would be to learn more about how campaigns work, spend some time on the inside, read books on how to campaign.  Campaigns are about getting votes and there are established methods to get there.

So what can the netroots do for a candidate?  What are their proven assests?
-Raise early money for candidates from a national audience that a State or Local candidate otherwise might not reach
-Create early buzz for the candidate, particularly if your blog is read by national, state or local press. Push Stories that the candidate wants out there, and counter negative stories from the opponent

We have no proven ability to generate a local concentration of volunteers, some issue cohesion on a given blog, no record of message discipline, and a tendency to publicly air any dirty laundry.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

---

by: Luam @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 10:35:17 AM CDT

respect (0.00 / 0)

why would they respect you? you will vote for them period. if obama wants my vote he needs show it. i supported him in the primary. that was then, this is now. i have a respect problem with him. his problem. if he doesn't respect you, well how do you respect him?

---

by: breid1903 @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 14:46:57 PM CDT

The netroots has no power where it counts... (0.00 / 0)

As long as we live in a two-party duopoly, why should the Democratic party give a damn about us, except to use us as their foot soldiers?  The Repugnanticans do the same thing with the Christian Right.  (A major difference is that the social control aspect of the Christian Right meshes nicely with the social control desires of the Republican elite.)

From a political standpoint, we live in a country where we can either buy a Buick (Republicans), a Chevy (Democrats), or take mass transit (independents).  Unfortunately, both the Buick and Chevy brands are owned by the same "company".  (Yes, I know that there are major differences between the two parties.  Nevertheless, I hold to Gore Vidal's truism that there is only one party in the US, and that's the Corporate Party.  It has a Liberal wing and a Conservative wing, but the same economic elites really own the whole show.  That's why a significant number of Democrats have voted for so much of the horrific legislation that's been passed in the last 28 years.  They are owned by many of the same people who own the Republicans.  He who pays the piper calls the tune.)

IMO, if the netroots wanted to have an impact it would mobilize its resources to change the electoral system to incorporate some form of Instant-Runoff Voting and Proportional Representation.  These two "enhancements" are in place (to varying degrees) in much of Europe, and the effects are telling.  Europe has:  much better health care, stronger environmental regulations and enforcement, much less wealth and income inequality, much better access to child care and opportunities for women, greater opportunities for social mobility, a better education system, a less-bloated military, better retirement and worker's rights, and so on.  Do you think that any of this would have happened without the multi-party system that Europe has?  Fundamentally, European governments are more representative of their populaces than is the US government.

Only by opening up our electoral process to allow third parties a real opportunity to compete in the political process will the Democratic Party finally give the netroots the respect it deserves.  Until then, we are a captive audience with no where else to go.

---

by: themikeaustin @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 15:38:19 PM CDT

change the system (0.00 / 0)

I like your line of thinking here. In effect, the netroots have no power right now because the system allows the establishment to ignore the netroots when it wants to. Look at the electoral college right now. Don't we go over this every 4 years? everyone says "man this system is outdated and stupid, my vote doesn't count because i live in heavily red/blue state or allows situations like bush/gore 2000, etc". I remember reading an analysis of the system that posited that just 10 people were necessary to win a presidential election - 1 person to vote in the 10 most populous states would be enough, if no one else voted in those states, and every other state voting the other way wouldn't matter (I think I got that right). Yet 3 months after the election its forgotten about.

No politician in either party would take the necessary risks to reform a system like that. First of all, it frequently benefits them. Second, look at Old McCain's attempt to reform campaign finance. It made him an apostate in his own party, and even after changing all his positions (selling his own soul some would say), he still needed the Palin pick just to close the so called enthusiasm gap. And that is an extremely well connected politician with a high national profile. Why would anyone risk that, barring a so called maverick reputation? Barring miracles, the establishment will maintain itself. Hell its the nature of conservatism to conserve.

What we need to do is change the system so that it is forced to pay more respect to our influence. There is precedent for this. Look at the rise of right wing talk radio in the 80's. This might be old hat for some well versed on the net neutrality debate, but just to refresh, the key moment in its rise in profile and influence was the FCC's 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, which said that media had to present both sides of an argument. Ring wing radio shows exploded after that, moving the conversation nationally rightward and helping to install Newt Gingrich's Contract with America 1994 congressional sweep.

What is our equivalent? Well, I'm not sure. I like themikeaustin's ideas. My suggestion would be this: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI...    Maryland signed a law that basically said that they would award their electoral votes to the national vote winner, as long as enough states that totalled 270 electoral votes passed the same law. If enough states passed this law, then we would see more independents and third parties running, since they wouldn't be held back by having to win states anymore. Someone could even win with just 25 or 30% of the vote. It would loosen the corporate media's hold on the presidential race in some respects (they would be forced to allow other candidates debate). It would certainly change the political discourse in fundamental ways, as candidates would no longer spend all their time in 10 or less states. Who knows what else? There are a lot of implications.

And what would this take? Someone should look into whether something like this could be accomplished through state referendum. I assume it could be (I don't see why not). And thats right up the netroots alley, isn't it? If its true that only 10 states are necessary to win, then that would be all we would need to pass the law for it to become reality. A few high profile wins might even be all it takes to provide support for a Congressional reform of the electoral college moving in that direction.  

---

by: essaywhuman @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 17:23:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Only referendum/initiative will do it (0.00 / 0)

Roughly half the states have either a referendum or an initiative system.  Getting IRV/Proportional Representation implemented in these states would put huge pressure on the remaining states to do so also.

Best of all, this is not a "left" issue at all.  All the minor, fringe political parties would work for this, as would many conservative groups.  Many religious conservatives feel the same way about the Republican party as the netroots does about the Dems.  Libertarians, socialists, etc. would all benefit from this because it would allow them to truly gauge how widespread support is for their platform.

I'll have more to say later...

---

by: themikeaustin @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 19:03:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is a good post! (0.00 / 0)

First of all, I'm very impressed with the Personal Paid Media. I really think that's something new and potentially important.

Progressive blogs, however, have severe structural limitations, and because of these limitations, it will never be wise for electable Democrats to align themselves so closely with blogs so as to (gasp!) have bloggers influence platforms. Progressive blogs are a discussion forum for the like-minded. They are self-selecting (for people who can stand talking to progressive bloggers: a distinct minority!) and consist of a population that is far out of the political mainstream. It would be foolish for a serious Democrat to take marching orders from blogs, and not just for the obvious reason that it would be easy to smear such a candidate.

Progressive bloggers, insofar as they have an agenda, stand for lots of good ideas, but also some dumb ones. That's true for every populist mob. We are one such mob. There is no reason to think that the netroots "platform" is in any way more democratic or wiser or more realistic than the platform of any professional liberal politician. In this medium, the kneejerk ideologues easily outshout the people who know better. That is not encouraging for the latter, who take their ball and go home, leaving behind a false impression of unanimity.

So why should anyone listen to a platform cobbled together by these means? And why should we bloggers have any confidence in such a platform, and feel like it needs a helping hand?

We should also reconsider the following assumption, that there are

expanded opportunities for civic engagement brought on by the progressive netroots.

Are there really? Like I said, I love the Personal Paid Media, but that's in no way tied to the blogosphere. I think blogs are often a disincentive for genuine civic engagement. Taking turns to preach to a choir might be cathartic, but is not a civically valuable activity. If we want influence, we should be reaching the people who decide elections. Blogs don't - or at least, not often. Sometimes blogs break or keep alive stories for the MSM. Those reach people. But that activity doesn't require a netroots platform. It requires sharp-eyed observers and an audience. Blogs have both, and so they do sometimes reach past the choir. Notice how different this is, though, from the desire to foment a movement and to reform politics. I am very skeptical that blogs can do either, and if they ever do, I wouldn't expect the movement and reforms to be any good.

I use blogs because I like learning stuff and discussing issues, not because I want to be in the vanguard of some movement. I think this is one interesting issue that's good to discuss, and I appreciate the reflective posts here and enjoy contributing to the discussion.

---

by: spork @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 18:26:57 PM CDT

The real, painful reason why (0.00 / 0)

Why doesn't anyone respect the Netroots?

Because they present themselves as a bunch of nuts and undesirables, that's why. Smartass college kids who say "doody" (or some equivalent) a lot. Raving psycho radicals with conspiracy theories that always manage to work the word "Zionist" in. Cruel and vulgar slurs against political opponents instantly embraced as fact (Palin's son/daughter/husband, etc.) Broadbrush generalizations and ridicule and pothead-sounding screeds against everyone who isn't a netroot.

I guess this all is acceptable when you're 20 and still have all the answers. But it's also the reason why SENATOR Obama  would co-author a bill with SENATOR McCain before he'd give you the time of day. Back in the 80's I was a Reagan supporter and a skinhead- do you think Reagan would meet with me and accept my advice, or would he tell the Secret Service to kick my ass out onto the street if I tried to approach him? Winning an election requires making oneself acceptable to the majority of American voters, not the majority of Daily Kos readers or of skinheads. And the majority of American voters think you suck. So no politician who doesn't want to be tarred with the unpleasant reaction you tend to get from mainstreamers is going to want to have anything to do with you. Now or ever.

Want respect? Here's my advice. Clean up your act, cut out the anger and vulgarity cheap shots and wacky theories about Diebold voting machines, and use your creativity to inspire positive change, the kind that is constructive and inclusive. Why can't you say "John McCain is a great American and a good man, but I think Obama is a better choice for President because..." "Sarah Palin is an amazing woman and a good governor for Alaska, but she's not my choice for Vice President because..." That's the way Democrats used to talk when they won presidential elections. The reaction from all sides might amaze you. But what do I know, right?  

---

by: Polkamouse @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 23:09:53 PM CDT

I don't want them to respect us (0.00 / 0)

I want them to FEAR us.  That's what was so great about the Dean campaign -- we had them fucking terrified, running scared.  That's as it should be -- the powerful in this country should be terrified of what the people can do to them.  I haven't seen anything since then to indicate that the netroots as a whole can sustain that kind of terror, nor that they particularly want to.

ProgressiveHistorians: History For Our Future

---

by: Nonpartisan @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 00:19:56 AM CDT