Look at the Dascle-Thune blog or NotSpecter.com, or health care blogging or their outreach to Iraqis.

They are much stronger than we are, politically and in terms of generating and projecting ideas.

But, I do think the blogosphere will be a significant reason for torpedoing Bush's social security plan if it is to happen.

By the way, what do you mean by "sticky"?

To me, far more influential was Michael Moore highlighting the embarrassing footage from 2000 in Fahrenheit 9/11, plus the demands of the Congressional Black Caucus that they not be ignored again.  Proof of a resurgent left, yes, but not specifically proof of increased power for left blogs.

But maybe it is only bad news in the short term because there is no need for these two strangths to be in a aero sum relationship.  Once a reform Democrat modernizes the party, the liberal blogosphere can still be activist in addition to the activities of the party, whereas the winger blogosphere may not understand the power of the medium beyond spreading sleaze and wisper campaigns.

Maybe it reflects to the interactive nature of blogs and the Left being more diverse. Lefties like to chat up new ideas. The Right is more satisfied with allowing a few guys to drone on-and-on on the radio.

Part of the reason blog activism has grown so much on our side is the vacuum that existed before in grassroots activism.  But the fact that our side has embraced the netroots as a means of partisan activity does not mean our left-wing machine can compare to the right-wing.  We have at least another election cycle to go before we can leverage enough people and resources to defeat the right-wing machine.

The right will learn from that, and undoutedly begin to copy the practice in 2006/2008 -- only they will do it differently.

Their streamlined top-down model will have them promoting, and raising big money, for candidates like Rick Renzi, John Thune, and other candidates deemed worthy by the NRCC & RNC.

You will see LGF making fundraising pleas for candidates the party establishment asks him to.  That is the nature of the beast on the right, and what I believe we can expect in 2006.

On the left, we are a different, decentralized breed.  A great example of this is the spat between Bonham and Kos, when the DCCC disagreed with the candidates Markos chose to fundraise for.  The top-down management style of the Republican party was reflected in the thesis of Bohnam's critique.

We just think differently than Republicans and our own party establishment.

The lefty blogosphere supports candidates because we believe in fielding competitive challengers in each and every seat, from the top of the ticket to the bottom.

In that regard, we are picking up the slack for the DCCC.  Fundraising for candidates like Ben Konop and Jeff Seemann is born out of necessity, because we see the value of leaving no seat uncontested.

While the DCCC might not see the value in that, the fact of the matter is that we are working with them more than against them.  We are just doing it "for their own good."

But it doesn't stop there.

While the Republican Party has a rigid ideology with no place for those who fall outside of extremist line of thinking; we have a "big tent."

However, the lefty-blogosphere is just that - we are lefty.  For many of us, we see the Net as a tool to shape the very face of the party.

We will not hesitate to stand up for a candidate because they espouse the values we, on the left, hold dear.

We will also not hesitate to eat one of our own because they do not represent our vision for the future of the Democratic party (see Joe Lieberman).

So you decide.  Which is more better?  A streamlined top-down Republican model, or a rag-tag group of netizens who are hell-bent on "waging politics" with the existing tools to challenge seats in every district and reward candidates committed to progress and progressive ideology?

I like the way we do business.  On both accounts.  At the end of the day, I believe we are saving the party establishment from itself.

Tim

In other words, "Rathergate" in no way represented a triumph of Righty-bloggers.  True, it was a demonstration of how the Right can use the internet to leak anonymously.  And to that extent it cannot be dismissed as a sort of super Drudge-like tool to disseminate info.

But Righty bloggers have demonstrated no capacity to drive stories independant of their GOP propoganda gurus.  Whereas the Left's triumphs have come despite virtually no prodding from Democratic insiders.  I'd add Lott's removal and the Sinclair boycott to the list.

I have a mixed reaction to all this.  On one hand, I'm thrilled that blogs have become a force for Democratic grassroots activists.  OTOH, I'm continually dismayed that Democratic leaders often have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to the blogger position, even though we are fighting on principle and the leaders have personal stakes in the political battles.

Fact is, a right-wing show can listen to 500 or so other right-wing shows for "message of the day" in addition to the blogosphere.

A left-wing show (or one that listens to l-wing issues, like Olbermann) has much less to fall back on concerning "message of the day" or "outrage of the day".

I guess my point is that the left-wing blogosphere is much more influential and crucial to their side right now, largely because there isn't anything else.  Are right-wing blogs influential?  Sure (particularly if you include Drudge, which I don't, b/c it ain't a blog).  But certainly not indispensable or nearly as influential.

PS:  The Air America article in today's WSJ is critical.  Wonder why Drudge didn't link to it....

The attention this bill received on the Internet then crossed over into mainstream media, with numerous television stations and newspapers in Virginia covering the phenomenon.

The story is still picking up newspaper attention, with stories in a chain of about 10 local VA papers yesterday and another one today.

The interesting thing is, the more attention this Republican legislator gets for his odious bill and the story of why he withdrew it, the more shrill his attacks on blogs becomes.  Here are some of his quotes from today:

If you read the article, you'll note that he just keeps crying "misinformation, misinformation, misinformation" but he never refutes - and has never refuted - a single fact in the original piece.  He says that his INTENT was different than the scenario I described, but our problem was not with his intent - it was the CONTENT of the bill itself.  

I expect we'll see much more railing about the badness of blogs as we continue to have successes.  Any thoughts about effective ways to respond to this?

i would like to see a list of our influence in policy, media and politics.

The only depressing thing is that Kos essentially gets us even with the right by giving us our own Free Republic.  I've never heard of Democratic Underground having any influence over any of these issues (but have heard of the Freepers playing a role).  So, it seems like we have a temporary technology advantage and a real cultural/strategic advantage because our netroot leaders actually believe in and like a decentralized yet focused community that, once built, is almost impossible to stop.  Otherwise, we are dependent on the energy and genius of Duncan Black, Bob Somberby and Josh Marshall.  If they get sick of it (just as happened to Billmon and others), we lose those voices and that influence.  Anybody remember Media  Whores Online?

I do hope Chris, that you're time with Jerome enables you to grow and develop your own voice in a profitable, sustainable way.  It is too bad about BillMon and the inability of the Kos community to replicate itself off of the DailyKos and to develop additional voices, like Josh's, so we instensify the attack on the other side.

Final thought -- interesting to compare model of "media matters" with Daily Kos.  Media Matters was effective with Sinclair and with Frank Luntz.  But, its top down nature limits its effectiveness - stuff sounds the same after awhile and O'Reilly and others have been able to deflect Brock's attack somewhat because it is so predictable (and afterawhile, unreadable).  I think we would probably be better suited with a media site that is more flexible (although it is nice to have someone pay to Tivo and transcribe those programs).  Brock would be better served to just publish the transcripts and let the blogsphere have at it rather than pursue this vertical approach.

I don't think we need a "Drudge" -- If one were to calculate his error rate it would be out of sight -- and when he is close to correct, it is usually because an insider has used him as a means to leak.  

But that doesn't mean Left Blogs should not cultivate sources and encourage them to use Blogs as a parallel system.  We should, and that is something missing.  Josh sometimes offers up an unnamed source, but what's really needed is to cultivate party and Hill staff letting them know blogs are another way to media attention, a place for trial balloons and the like.

The success of political blogs will always be in part measured by expansion of audience, particularly into realms normally unreached by either blogs or the net itself.  I have several ideas: -- a very short Blog digest with links that could be supplied to party mailing lists several times a week.  There are thousands of these lists -- most just track local events -- but if something could be mass mailed by this route, it might tie to parts of the Dem party that currently do not read blogs.  

Another audience we need to reach is the unattached and underorganized working class.  At least in the mid-west, the place to reach this audience is in the cafes -- the small town and highway places where people stop for coffee, and do the politics of the day around a table.  If we3 could find a way to organize it -- getting a nicely formatted but single article "thought of the day" copied off, and just available for coffee-time reading, I suspect we would achieve a larger and important audience.  In other words don't just think office watercoolers, think truck stops.    

Watch a hungry captive tiger in a zoo pace restlessly in his cage as it awaits feeding, then once fed is momentarily sated and content enough to sleep and digest its meal. Withhold the food and it becomes increasingly agitated and restless, its pacing quickening.

The democrats are out of power and therefore no doubt feel more is at stake than the republicans who have another 4 years in power. It is therefore no surprise that conservative blogs decline in traffic. The complacency that comes with that will strengthen the democrats' hand in 2008.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/oped/ci_2531269

Article Last Updated: 1/20/2005 06:16 AM

What's at stake for Democrats

WHEN the seven candidates for chairperson of the Democratic National Committee gather this weekend in Sacramento seeking votes at the party's western regional caucus, they would do well to remember what Marshall McLuhan famously wrote four decades ago, that "the medium is the message." The very future of the party may depend on it.

As the Democratic Party learned bitterly last November, in order to win the hearts -- and votes -- of an enduring electoral majority, it must do far more than refine its policies and shape consensus on its core values. It also must understand how to more effectively communicate with its voters and build a modern media infrastructure capable of doing so.

The fact is that the conservatives have outspent and outclassed progressives in the battle for the ears and eyes of voters in virtually every form of media. Fox News, Sinclair Broadcasting, Rush Limbaugh and Armstrong Williams are but the tip of the well-funded, determined and metastasizing Republican media machine. The effort by the chairman of the Federal Communication Commission last year to permit more -- not less -- media consolidation has only advanced this trend. The consequences have been daunting to Democratic campaigns, especially in the nation's heartland.

To compete and win in future elections, Democrats must be equally audacious when it comes to the scale and reach of their own communications machinery.

-First, they must launch their own Democratic public works project, dedicated to modernizing and investing in the party's communications apparatus. This will mean a bottom-up overhaul of the database, Internet and broadcast capacity of national, state and local party organizations, focusing on cutting-edge technology and best practices.

-Second, they must more boldly support -- operationally, financially and legislatively -- the emerging independent media communities, which are just now beginning to attract mainstream audiences as the result of rapidly increasing broadband Internet connectivity and easier and cheaper access to production tools and online distribution platforms.

This is true not just for independent news and information outlets, but equally for music videos, video games and other cultural and entertainment ventures that are becoming increasingly potent platforms for progressive political communication and organization.

-Third, they must focus more support for, and empowerment of, grass-roots local and ethnic independent media outlets, especially in our nation's lower income, exurban and rural communities, which comprise the nation's fastest growing segment of media consumers.

-Fourth, they must nurture deeper alliances with the "netroots," especially the so-called "blogosphere" of independent Net-based writers and activists, as well as with new online social and cultural networks. This will mean more targeted support in terms of advertising dollars, as well as access to, and commentary from, prominent Democratic and progressive leaders.

-Fifth, and most immediately, they must have the wisdom to elect a new type of party chairperson who grasps how media and technology are reshaping the nation's political landscape and has the proven skills and experience to outfox the Republicans in their use. It is not sufficient for the Democrats' next chair merely to be an effective television spokesperson. There are many compelling voices within the party's leadership who will -- and should -- handle that role.

Far more important to the Democrats' future electoral success will be a hands-on technically savvy political organizer and communications strategist committed to reinventing the party's communication capabilities, not only to compete with Karl Rove's well-oiled message bulwark, but in the service of an informed, engaged and democratic civil society.

Such a party leader must see Silicon Valley, Hollywood and the Internet as more than convenient places to raise money, but as vital partners in building new communities, inspiring voter participation, sharing ideas and developing new business and funding models to support independent media across the nation.

Above all, this new leader must make clear that in the wake of the 2004 election, the new DNC cannot stand for Do Not Communicate. It must mean Do Not Capitulate.

Jonathan Spalter, a resident of Oakland, and Jamie Daves of San Francisco are co-founders of the San Francisco-based Independent Media Consortium. They served as senior officials at the White House and Federal Communications Commission, respectively, during the Clinton-Gore Administration.