It's what we call an "elite" argument. I'm a latte-drinking type myself, so I don't mean to criticize. Elite voters are disproportionately represented in the blogosphere.
Even though elites are outnumbered, we supply a disproportionate amount of the funding and activism, so we're not irrelevant. Some cynical types have speculated that Dodd's fixation on issues like telecom immunity - a classic elite issue - has been motivated more by a desire to raise money from the netroots than anything else.
As always, the successful Democratic politician is the one who keeps all wings of the coalition happy and working together.
I'd agree, and of course, I see the points carter1 is making. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can talk about jobs, education, healthcare, and all that (keeping the wings of the coalition happy if you will) and base that all in Constitutional rhetoric. To me, that kind of argument accomplishes both talking about bread & butter issues and clearly defining your principles and values, something all candidates want and should do.
I guess I'm in a disagreeable mood today. From what I remember of my grad days in political science: elites are a subset of the population that have disproportionate power & influence in society. Think the upper socio-economic crust, ie. the very wealthy, corporate power, the media owners.
Steve: the people you're referencing are powerless. That's why we're in the blogosphere rather than the movers & shakers in the inner offices that are pulling the levers of power. My sense is that, sociologically, progressives that are abstract come mainly from comfortable middle class backgrounds where there's pride in thinking about societal issues. We need this & it certainly resonates with a portion of the American population. However, electoral campaigns to be successful, need to focus on gut issues. This is why progressives, who want us to campaign mainly on abstract principles, are a detriment to our cause.
