I think that it's important not to discount the very real possibility that Hillary is choosing to stamp her name on things that just aren't very popular with progressives.  Flag burning amendment, government regulation of video games, etc. etc. really aren't the sorts of things that progressives want as central planks of their candidate's platform.

This in many ways is potentially unfair to Clinton.  She has a pretty strong voting record on progressive issues and, while she's been hesitant to leap into the anti-war camp, her changing outlook has relatively accurately mirrored the American people. Many people would, perhaps, see this as her just following polls. It could also be that she's being convinced at about the same pace as the middle of the electorate which isn't such a bad thing per se.

I would suggest that, while elements of your analysis are probably correct, it's potentially more simple.  Activists are people that are passionate about politics and as such, they want to line up behind someone who's going to get them excited and get fired up with them.  It's why we get excited about people like Dean or Obama or Feingold who are actively engaged in trying to get the "base" excited and mobilized.  It isn't so much that we want or demand their respect as a political force, but we it's much easier to get excited about a candidate when they're excited about us too.  While we're going to keep fighting the good fight, it's a lot more fun, and thus we tend to work even harder, for someone who's clearly glad to have us along and have us happy.

I'd also guess that a lot of activists are pretty much starving for someone to step up and lead with a progressive agenda.  This again is probably not entirely fair to Clinton, because as I mentioned in a journal a while back, leading with the superprogressive issues is probably not the best idea if you're trying to get elected.  Clinton's popularity outside of the blogs suggests that she's doing a pretty good job of reaching more casual Democrats with ideas that they like.  If we look at her voting record, it indicates that she's pretty solid on the progressive issues even though she isn't talking about them all the time.  

As we get further to left and more engaged in the system though, and after spending so many years on the wrong end of things nationally, we really want a candidate that's willing and able to grab a microphone and validate our actions and ideas.  For better or for worse, Clinton isn't willing or able to do that.  The blogs, and progressives in general, want some love and approval from somewhere other than their own blogs and it's only natural to be more inclined towards candidates that provide that.

When I suggested that Dems not campaign on more controversial issues, the reaction was pretty harsh.  After years of trying to convince people that we're right on all of these issues (and we are, ssshhh) and getting beaten down by elections and the media and pundits and everywhere, the last thing we want to do, on a gutteral level, is act in any way like we're ashamed of or wavering on any of these issues. We want vindication, and we want it to be loud and swift and filling and assured when we get excited about a candidate.  Having to go on faith that we can slip it in the back door once we get our candidates elected who don't like to talk about it isn't nearly as satisfying.

1. The survey you discuss has some methodological problems (e.g., it focuses only on those blogs with enough readership to attract blogads, which I believe excludes a large number of blogs -- the "long tail." My guess is that there is a lot of stuff going on in that long tail.) On the other hand, I'll guess it's largely accurate.

2. The average income for blog readers hovers around $70,000. That is a very large number. I don't know what the variance is, but my guess is that it's not large enough to include the "working class." (I'll take a stab in the dark and interpret that income as per individual, not per family; not sure how the question was phrased. In general, I wouldn't be surprised if blogs skewed young so that $70k is either for a single person household or a DINKy or at least DIKy one.)

3. You use the phrase "well-connected" and "insider" to describe Clinton donors. My guess is that this is mostly a stereotype. Clinton has a great deal of support among Democrats -- as you've noted yourself, she polls high in telephone surveys that presumably don't work from the secret DLC phonebook.

4. My analysis: the reason Clinton polls so poorly among the grassroots is that she's perceived as insincere. She'll rally the best one day, and then go out and pal with Newt the next. Bloggers prefer greater predictability and control in their candidate: they have strong opinions and (good!) ideas, and they support candidates who go out and follow through on them.

To put it another way: bloggers see a much greater overlap between politics and the media. They support candidates who use their media platform to promote -- unambiguously -- progressive ideas.

Today, Harry Reid made a dramatic statement comparing the republican culture of corruption to the Vegas mafia he fought earlier in his life.  Hillary Clinton is a universally recognized public figure, far more than any other current democrat. But does she do her part for the mighty left Wurlitzer? No.  Does she pull her weight in the national debate? No.  Does she exercise her responsibility to lead, as a statesman? No. She picks the little fights, the incremental issues.

Many republicans are calling for democrats to assume the submissive position, to accept that republicans have won, to limit ourselves to offering milquetoast incremental improvements to obvious universal issues like gas mileage and nuclear plants.   Hillary, I am sad to say, has internalized this dynamic, and acts as the docile good democratic wife to the aggressive republican establishment.  "We're not hear to rock the boat, dear. Just be patient and let me tinker with some marginal, safe issues.  We're in no position to cause a raucus".  

Meanwhile, we have a President who is flaunting his illegal wiretapping orders and is unilaterally assuming authority without a peep of oposition.  Bush's behavior makes Nixon's look like child play.  And where's Hillary?

(I know you will also ask, where's ___ ? ) Good question!

Live long (Social Security, Medicare, universal pre-natal care, etc.) and prosper (GDP growth under Dem presidents since 1930 is an order of magnitude higher than under Reps).

p.s. We're also majorly into Buffy, The Vampire Slayer, and just about anything else Joss Whedon does, except sneeze.

I would suggest that a better question is "Do blogs represent the interests of the Democratic base?"

Your paradigm of a political class divide is on target Chris, but the discussion has gone off on tangents of income and voting behavior.

Income - Of course bloggers and blog readers are going to have an average income above the norm. Working Americans who are working two jobs or 60 hours a week don't have time for the luxury of blogging.

Voting behavior - This is a variation of the standard "electability" theme that DLCers constantly turn to when they claim progressives are "out of the mainstream." The real question that progressives are challenging is the "chicken or egg" question of whether Democratic voters are choosing conservative Dems or the Democratic party structure is choosing conservative Dems in the primaries.

I would like to suggest that your analysis is precisely correct when you reframe it as whether bloggers represent the interests of the Democratic base. Now we can examine the polls that demonstrate conclusively that the interests and desires of the Democratic base, no matter how it is defined, are more accurately reflected by bloggers and progressives than by "mainstream" corporatist Democratic politicians like Hillary.

This also allows us to take into account the messaging that even most Democratic primary voters are receiving as it is filtered through the M$M and the Democratic Party machine. On both factual and ideological grounds progressives and bloggers represent the interests of the Democratic base, but their message is muted and overwhelmed by the RWNM, the M$M and the typical voices of the Democratic Party that most voters get a chance to hear.

It takes a great deal of effort to sift through the information smog and search out the unfiltered progressive message that addresses the needs of both the Democratic base and average American voters.

1.  She supports the Iraq war.  This is far and away the most important reason.  It is the biggest issue of our time and she is on the wrong side of it.  That alone would be enough for most of us to be against her.

2.  She is obviously blowing with the wind of the polls.  Triangulating, splitting the difference, etc.  People I talk to want a leader, not a calculating pol.