Gina,

Wealth isn't distributed, it's earned. Many of us are just as opposed to corporate welfare as we are to the form of prior restraint called "regulation".

Sorry, Chris, but you and the rest of the press CORPSE need to learn what "analysis" means. Analysis should involve actually speaking to the people out here in the hinterlands. Those who actually talk to real people know that there is widespread disillusionment with both parties. Why? Because Republicans are greedy, unscrupulous bums who have practically disemboweled government with their "starve it" and "drown it" philosophy and because Democrats are greedy, unscrupulous bums who have their lips affixed to the rumps of donors so firmly that they can't do anything but follow. Most Americans are fed up with trying to make it on crap wages and being passed over for jobs due to their age. Most Americans would like to see our country returned to its roots with a Congress and Senate who are more interested in playing out a Rockefeller experiment on the world than in policies that benefit the average person.

There are a couple of exceptions like Russ Feingold, Conyers etc. who are in touch with the anger of the populace. What many voters are hoping for is someone with that old time Democratic religion...someone who cares about the little guy. The greed and stupidity of both parties is killing the country. As much as I like Kos and MyDD, I think that their belief that only a Democrat or a Republican can win is going to be proven wrong--unless the voting machines get rigged again.

Those of us who have actually studied the situation thoroughly see the need for a new economic paradigm since the "free market" baloney has yet again proven false. You see, free markets don't really exist, if they did, why has the CIA used so many of its resources intervening in them when decisions did not go the way of the multinationals? This blind and foolish adherence to neoliberal economics is destroying the world's economies and empoverishing everybody that is not "in the club." What we need is a economic paradigm that distributes wealth more evenly, fixed value currencies and a more equitable way to strategically allocate resources among all countries. Many Americans also think that in a time of scarce oil, building an empire and using up all the petroleum is just plain crazy.

None of us understand how we, who have so little, are supposed to carry the weight of those who have so much (and don't pay their fair share of taxes or the services that they use). We don't understand how Congress which has so thoroughly screwed the pooge can consider voting itself a raise when many of us can't even get any help due to flawed income considerations for food stamps etc. I've never even taken assistance before, but after years of trying to get work, I don't have a choice.

PLEASE FOR EVERYONE'S SAKE, stop flogging the race horse of the Republicans versus Democrats. What many of us would like to see is a couple of honest third parties to provide competition to these two non-competitors with slightly different versions of the same stupid ideas.

Sorry, Chris, but you and the rest of the press CORPSE need to learn what "analysis" means. What is happening is that many people out here in the hinterlands who actually talk to real people know that there is widespread disillusionment with both parties. Why? Because Republicans are greedy, unscrupulous bums who have practically disemboweled government with their "starve it" and "drown it" philosophy and because Democrats have their lips affixed to the rumps of donors so firmly that they can't govern.

There are a couple of exceptions like Russ Feingold, Conyers etc. What many voters are hoping for is someone with that old time Democratic religion...someone who cares about the little guy. The greed and stupidity of both parties is killing the country. As much as I like Kos and MyDD, I think that their belief that only a Democrat or a Republican can win is going to be proven wrong.

Those of us who have actually studied the situation thoroughly see the need for a new economic paradigm since the "free market" baloney has yet again proven false. You see, free markets don't really exist, if they did, why has the CIA used so many of its resources intervening in them when decisions did not go the way of the multinationals? This blind and foolish adherence to neoliberal economics is destroying the world's economies and empoverishing everybody that is not "in the club." What we need is a economic paradigm that distributes wealth more evenly, fixed value currencies and a more equitable way to strategically allocate resources.

PLEASE FOR EVERYONE'S SAKE, stop flogging the race horse of the Republicans versus Democrats. What many of us would like to see is a couple of honest third parties to provide competition to these two non-competitors with slightly different versions of the same stupid ideas.

While what the leftist bloggers are doing to Senator Lieberman makes me puke, Chris is right about the power and affect that the blogs will have.

Unfortunately, the majority of candidates do not reach out to the blogosphere. One of the few candidates that has aggressively sought the blogosphere is Pennsylvania's Raj Peter Bhakta (R-13th District opposing Allyson Schwartz).

If more candidates followed this example, they would learn how truly affective bloggers can really be.

All I can do is speak for myself...DailyKos is where I get my news after I watch the networks, read my towns daily paper. I also check out Redstate a few times a week. DailyKos is a community of mostly ordinary citizens~like myself: Middle age democrat. Not overly interested in politics until shortly after GWB was appointed president. I'd NEVER given money to any political anything. I clean houses for a living so my money is earned the hard way and I don't have much to spare, but I now give regularly to Dem. candidates. I also participated in the April Get out the Vote campaign, and plan on helping anytime I can here in my town. I've gotten over my shyness about speaking politics and share the Democratic message with those who will listen. Now, multiply that by 80 thousand DailyKos daily participants. (up to half a million readers) I would call that an Effect.

oops...where it says 'Webb' above it should say 'Obama'

I agree with Jeff - Obama has stated several times he is not running for Prez or Vp in '08. Drop it people. He needs more experience - the DEMS have TONS of other great candidates with a lot more political experience than Webb - Warner, Richardson, Bayh, Gore, Clark....

I think the reason Obama recently brought on two more advisors/aides is simply b/c he is so in demand and strapped for time. His office receives more then 200 speaking invitations a week!! I think that is more than any other Senator. He has so many speaking engagemetns and duties that are'nt normal for a freshman Senator that he really just needs the extra hands.

As for Warner/Clark '08 , that is one damn sexy ticket. However, I believe something like Warner/Richardson would be even better b/c then Clark would be free and we could make General Clark the Secretary of Defense. I think he would serve his country better in this role than as VP.

Warner/Clark '08

Obama recently picked up two big Dem consultants...if he's not actually running for the WH he's at least positioning, potentially for a VP run.

PS - I don't get where this Obama hype comes from. He's not going to run, and though I have tremendous respect for the guy, can we give him a term or two in the Senate first?

Ohio Guy, please re-read my post carefully. I am very much in agreement with you that DailyKos tends to support candidates based on criteria other than electability. On my other point, we will have to agree to disagree.

On Senator Feingold - I am not sure how much of a shot he has. He is a fantastic campaigner because he speaks with conviction and gravitas. He also occupies his own niche in the party, and few if any of the candidates will compete with him early on for money from that sector. However, even if he wins the primary - and even the election - sometimes I wonder if he'd be the best President. He's a maverick, and frankly he's so good that he makes the rest of the Senate look bad. From what I hear, he has no friends in the Senate, and because of that, I wonder if a Feingold Administration would not have an incredibly tough time getting its legislative agenda through. Which is saddening, because Feingold is so perfect for this party in every other way.

The DailyKos is a blog for the hate america left wing kook base. I am glad prospective nominees would pander to such a bunch of nutballs, this will make our job much easier in 08. You lefties have had a really bad week, and now no Rove indictment. I hate it for ya. What's next, we get OSAMA and republicans gain seats in both houses.

"Other than Senator Russ Feingold, none of those have much of a shot, really. It's looking like a Gore/Obama ticket in 2008."

Will from Seattle-- I have to admit, I did a little double take on this one. As great a president as Feingold would be (and I agree that he would be a great president), he is EXTREMELY unlikely to win. And "it's looking like a Gore/Obama ticket in 2008"??? Where did you pull that from??? First of all, Obama has repeatedly and definitively asserted that he WILL NOT RUN FOR EITHER PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT IN 2008. Will not. It's not going to happen. Also, I am extremely skeptical that Gore would give up his current position and lifestyle (he gets paid plenty, people actually listen to him and are glad to hear from him, and he doesnt have to lose to anybody) to take another difficult shot at the presidency.

I think the netroots folks are still trying to find exactly how they fit into the system. They aren't a traditional political group like labor unions, or women's rights groups in the fact they don't have that one issue that defines their mission. Now I know that many in the blogging world will point to the opposition to the war in Iraq as their one issue, but I disagree. People joined the netroots because they were pro-environment, pro-choice, pro-fair trade, etc, and nobody in the power structure of the Democratic party was talking about these things.
Personally I joined this group because I found in Dean a person who actually talked about the issues. Then I found other people who actually listened! That is what the Netroots is all about. I would also like to second Jeff's comments about the Fix being a great level discussion group (most of the time).

"They claim a win with Ned Lamont but he is polling 15% behind lieberman."

Rob - can you please point out to me just who is supposedly claiming that Ned Lamont has won anyhting yet? B/c I am on DKos every day and I haven't seen that. Oh, and by the way, when Lamont first got into the race 2-3 months ago, he was trailing Lieberman by 50%. Tightening a race by 35% in a couple months seems pretty impressive to me.

"Basically, the netroots throw their support behind a candidate who may or may not have the best chance of winning, exactly as you said."

Jeff -

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. The candidate's chance of winning never even enters the discussion. The netroots chooses which candidates to back based on their ideology, principles, ethics and character, NOT their "electability" or chance of winning - that's why we have supported Hackett, Tester, Webb, Herseth, Lamont, Obama, Webb, etc. Remember how we chose John Kerry b/c he was supposedly "electable"? We've learned our lesson from that one. All of those names listed above were chosen b/c they were the RIGHT candidate to support, not the one who had the most money or the most name recognition or established support, but the candidate who was/is truly committed to progressive, Democratic values and principles.

Your other arguemnt is also just plain wrong. No one at DKos blames the DLC when Francine lost. No one blamed the DLC when Hackett lost. No one at DKos took all the credit when Tester won - sure, a lot of kossacks pounded the pavement for him, worked the phonebanks for him, and donated to his campaign, but no one ever said that the netroots was responsible for his victory. Tester won b/c he has a great record in Montana and a cleaner(spotless, really) background than Morrison.

I WILL grant you the fact that a LOT of people at DKos in particular are simply obsessed with bashing the DLC almmost as much as they bash Bush - in that regard you are correct. I get into arguments with people all the time about this very issue. But we don't go as far as to blame our problems and losses on the DLC.

Ohio Guy - I didn't hear it from the MSM, because I rarely read about these races in the MSM. I learned about the Tester victory and the Obama victory on places like DailyKos. So I didn't hear some blowhard on MSM, I saw it for myself. I read DailyKos on a daily basis, and every day I see posts about how the netroots are "crashing the gates" by getting their favorite Democrat nominated OR I see posts about how the DLC stifled the netroots by supporting/funding/fixing the election for the guy DailyKos doesn't like.

Basically, the netroots throw their support behind a candidate who may or may not have the best chance of winning, exactly as you said. My point is that the netroots try to claim all the credit when their guy pulls through, but always blame the DLC for causing their candidate to lose. They see their conflict with the DLC as something far more important than what it actually is.

Thank you Choska, Q and Ohio guy. Said it all for me.

Kos Primary? From what I have seen from the Kos kids that would be one primary I wouldn't want to win. They are something like 0 for 20 now in elections. I think they have backed some winners in democrat against democrat primarys but that's about it. They claim a win with Ned Lamont but he is polling 15% behind lieberman. I say Kos should keep up the good work and keep siphoning money from demcrat candidates and direct the money to ones that can't win. Works for me.

"The attitude I sense at DailyKos is that every time a Kos-supported candidate wins a primary or an election, it is because of the Netroots; every time a Kos-supported candidate goes down, it is because of the DLC."

Jeff, I find it really interesting that you would say this b/c I get exactly the opposite impression. The MSM refuses to acknowledge that the netroots even helped just a little bit in the winning campaigns of Obama in the Illinois primary or in the general election victory of Stephanie Herseth in SD-AL, even though it played significant roles in both. However, when candidates like Francine Busby lose in a district that has a 15% republican advantage, the netroots are blamed b/c we heavily backed Francine. It couldn't possibly be b/c of the republican nature of the district, could it? The underlying assumption that people make about Daily Kos and other blogs is that they care about being associated with victorious candidate above all else - and this assumption could not be more wrong.

If we wanted to, I'm sure we could heavily back someone like Joe Lieberman and other Democrats who would likely easily coast to reelection and then pat ourselves on the back after they win. WE have ZERO interest in doing that. It's just the opposite - we back candidates of strong character and PRINCIPLE in very tough races where we start off with little chance if any of winning.

Take a look at candidates that have been HEAVILY backed by the netroots - Paul Hacket (ran in a district that regularly elected the republican candidate with 75% of the vote), Stephanie Herseth (South Dakota is a strong red state), Francine Busby (as preiously noted, a +15% repub district), Ned Lamont (running against an 18-year incumbent in Joe Lieberman, former VP-nominee with a $5 million warchest who is popular with republican and independent voters), Jon Tester (running for the Senate in Montana, a state that voted for Bush by 20%, against an opponent, Conrad Burns, who has almost a 20-1 lead on Tester in campaign cash), and Eric Masa and Joe Sestak who are both running for the House in New York and Pennsylvania, respectively, in majority-republican districts.

So the next time you hear some blowhard from the MSM comment that the netroots has yet to produce any major victories, you will know that the basic assumption of that comment in itelf is deeply flawed. The netroots is not interested in producing vast numbers of meaningless, pointless "victories" that send incompetent fools who are bankrolled by lobbyists (ie. most politicians in America today) to the House and Senate. If that was our goal, we would not be called the netroots - we would be called Republicans.

Basically, Kos and other bloggers are reacting against the last five and a half years. What we've seen is a Republican president who lost the popular vote push through an extremely right wing agenda through a narrowly divided Congress. Instead of opposing him, the Democrats have often gone along with him or remained silent out of fear. Most Democrats outside Washington have been outraged at the Bush administration and the Democrats' failure to provide effective opposition or a clear alternative. If you understand this, you can understand where Kos and all of the other bloggers are coming from and why bloggers are on the rise. So the main thing Kos wants is Democrats who are proud to be Democrats and are not afraid to oppose Bush. The only litmus test is your position on the Iraq War. That is how he can support candidates ranging from Ned Lamont to Jim Webb. Potential 2008 candidates would be wise to take bloggers seriously. Even candidates like Warner, who do not really share the ideology of bloggers like Kos should pay attention to them. As newcomers, they appreciate attention, so even if Warner's visit to Yearly Kos does not get him Kos' support, it will keep him from being the target of his hostility. After seeing how the Internet turned Dean from an unknown to an almost nominee, you can bet many candidates will be eager to tap into that base of support.

Choska, you give an eloquent defense of the netroots. I remain skeptical that they were behind Barack Obama's success, or John Tester's. The attitude I sense at DailyKos is that every time a Kos-supported candidate wins a primary or an election, it is because of the Netroots; every time a Kos-supported candidate goes down, it is because of the DLC.

You are right, however, in that they do seem to seek authenticity. And that's better than unbending adherence to some policy programme, like most interest groups seek.

From the postings above there seem to be two criticisms of the NetRoots.

- The writers there are too generous with their attacks on others, and certainly generous with their use of the F-Bomb
- They are "just another interest group" who claim that their views are representative of a much larger group.

Fair enough.

But those observations don't go at the central point that the writers at Kos, MyDD, Firedoglake, and TalkingPointsMemo make every day about Democrats and Republican. As Kos said, "Republicans can't govern and Democrats can't get elected."

Focusing on the "NetRoots" criticisms of Democrats. The writers at Kos and other places have taken up the banner of dozen of candidates including conservatives like Jim Webb, Ben Nelson, Wes Clark and Paul Hackett to progressives like Russ Feingold.

The main feature of these people is that they say what they mean, and mean what they say. They don't back down from fights, and aren't afraid to stand up for their principles. This support stems from the belief that political leaders should stand up for principles and not sell out what they believe to appease "interest groups."

Moreover, these candidates had support in the NetRoots long before they started paying attention to the bloggers who championed their cause. Ben Nelson has never posted at Kos, but people appreciate him there. Nancy Pelosi, on the other hand, has posted. But her failures to support Murtha have cost her dearly amongst the bloggers.

Maybe the bloggers aren't as good on TV as they are in print. So what? EVERYONE on TV gets up there and spouts platitudes.

But the Bloggers have proven they have legs. Their candidates like Hackett, Obama, Tester, and Lamont may not have won every race. But the bloggers are the ones who volunteer for campaigns and write checks. And Lamont's victory in August will prove that our effort to reform the Democratic party has GREAT legs.

Chris - for the record, I was not "sent" by John Kerry nor did I attend the convention on behalf of any elected official. Although I maintain a good relationship with my Kerry campaign colleagues, I do not currently work for Senator Kerry. I would appreciate a correction. Thanks.

Other than Senator Russ Feingold, none of those have much of a shot, really. It's looking like a Gore/Obama ticket in 2008. And once you beltway insiders get over Hillary, she might have a shot at the Veep side of the ticket.

Kos and the Netroots are an odd interest group. Their criteria for support seem to be a mixture of authenticity and adherence to certain liberalish principles such as opposition to the war. However, as much as they claim to be letting normal people back into politics, they are really just another interest group. They support the candidates that give them attention - like Feingold and Warner - and criticize the ones that ignore them. And they purport to represent the entire Democratic party, even though 90% of Democrats probably have never heard of DailyKos.

I used to frequent Democratic Underground to get my political-discussion fix, but it's too wild for me these days. I still check DailyKos on a daily basis, because there is occasionally intelligent discussion there. However, I come to Cillizza's Fix more and more often because the discussion is measured in tone and non-ideological in content. And no, Chris Cillizza did not pay me to say that. I just wanted to thank those of you who keep this place civil.

From what I saw on C-SPAN over the weekend and Koz on Meet The Press, I'm not ready to declare the netrooters any type of force in politics.

The people making presentations on C-SPAN seemed a bit too impressed with themselves. Kos just seemed enthusiastic without much substance, maybe a little too much so. He seemed "wired"; maybe because it was early in Las Vegas. He didn't over claim anything, but he didn't provide any good evidence that there's anything more than just buzz to this phenomenon.

Keep in touch guys! We'll leave the light on; but don't expect much more until you show that you truly have some impact.

I don't discount the enthusiasm and intelligence of the people I saw, but it's a little too early in the development of this new technological approach to spend all that much time reporting on it. Let it get some legs, before we devote much more attention to it.

Yearlykos '07 will be as big of a waste of time as this year. I was really disappointed. Maybe I'm getting too old or something but I just kept fighting the urge to walk out of workshops (I actually did bail on the second session of "Democracy for America"). There was just nothing of value whatsoever. Everyone I got roped into conversations with ended up boring me to tears. It was striking how much of the talk was around leveraging the internet, but I've never seen a more un-netsavvy group in my life. I couldn't wait for it to be over and I don't think I'll go to another one.

Chris I think you're over playing this yearlykos. No one's actually declared yet. The '07 yearlykos will actually be significant.