If they can't handle constructive criticism from those who support them, then how are they going to handle running a country in which not everyone will like them, and a world in which people will hate them. Sometimes I think our representatives protest too much about being 'hurt' as an excuse to avoid the necessary work of figuring out whether the criticism is right. I have seen quite a few apologists make similar arguments. It's like we are dealing with children or newbie writers who aren't used to seeing all the red ink on the page when they get the first edits. I think its kind of sad that they are whining like this, and that botht his, and the stuff about Colbert are metaphors for the lose of real debate. They may not like the criticism, but they need to realize that at least people here have their best interests, that of the parties and those of the American people in mind.

...your style, or the content of your posts but if you're annoying them you must be doing something right. Kudos to you. Keep it up.

You learned about them, they should learn about you (and also the rest of the blogosphere).

Tolerance of others opinions seems to be lacking in all political forums these days for some reason? It's a big reason why this country is headed south fast.

The netroots community is just like any other community, and you have to earn respect.  It takes time, and you have to be willing to answer questions.  I think too many misunderstand and view the netroots as a one way communication link, as they do traditional media, and it is a community not a medium.

Barry Welsh Indiana 6th District Democratic Party Congressional Candidate

A lot of the problem is that having an effective internet operation in the first place requires a campaign to allow a staffer to speak more freely and informally than the campaign might otherwise, and that loss of message disclipine can be anathema to old-school campaign managers.

What works on the Internet is authenticity, and if a campaign can't offer that online, it's going to fail.

There are a few dimensions to this.

First off, I agree with Matt, there are many people who get it, who want to get it and who are working very hard with very little recognition.

Second, progressives come into this with a history.  Politesse was de rigeur for a long time.  It got progressives squat.  We learned to be tough and to make harsh attacks because we learned that without doing so, we are patted on the head and ignored.  

We are not inherently nasty people in the "blog" caucus:  just fed up and eager for change.  I write some pretty scalding attacks, but my personality by nature is oriented toward collaboration, toward buulding and sustaining relationships.  I'd like nothing better than to se eus all "just get along."  Tough, harsh criticism, even mockery of the worst offenders (Lieberman) is a strategic choice.

Third, the blogosphere approximates a rough and tumble meritocracy of ideas and writing, and to a lessar extent, organizing.  On the other hand, not all of our politicians come from that kind of background, and because living in DC as a pol brings with it status and deference, the culture shock that comes form dealing with us can be substantial.  It's not often many pols encounter people not already awed by their presence or attention.  When they don't get that from us, they may feel the sting.  

Rather often, people get into politics in part because they want to be loved, to win people over.  It's the ultimate sales high.  I don't mean that in a perjorative way at all.  I think it's great, and very useful.  But we bloggers are very conditional, even perhaps fickle, with our love, because we pay attention and we let you know how we feel.  Kind of like New York baseball fans, we may boo you the week after we shout for curtain calls.  

As Matt points out, that's life.  That's democracy.

First, pols (or their staff) need to recognize the peculiar nature of blogs and work with the grain of them.

That means no undigested press releases dumped into blogs (that's here and Kos mostly) as diaries. And - for preference - an avoidance of post-and-run.

And - they should also understand that criticism of their policies or strategies does not imply an allegation that they are the spawn of Beelzebub. (Except for Joe Lieberman, of course.)

Second, bloggers need to recognize that, while comment is free for them, the slightest snafu attributable to the pol can stymie his campaign.

And that, most of the time, the person putting finger to keyboard will be someone relatively junior who unlikely to want to risk his job if that risk can be avoided by saying nothing.

(Though it's fair to say that, while some posts - like Pelosi's taking the gloves off post over at Kos - result in a torrent of abuse, most of them seem to prompt a stampede of eager anilinguists!)

I was interviewed two weeks ago or so by Perry Bacon, from Time Magazine

Did you tell them their new boss is a traitor?

"Netroots coordinator?" Really? Is this a measure of respect or contempt? Basically a lot of campaigns probably don't know what the hell to do about blogs, so might as well hire someone to deal with it. In their spare time they can empty the trash and staple placards together.

The campaigns that do well in regards to the internet and blogs will probably be the ones that integrate them into their messaging efforts from day one, and can nimbly respond to new information in the same news cycle. So unless these "netroots coordinators" are actually on board with the press team and the consultants, there are going to be a lot of leftover placards.

If you're getting under their skin Matt, it only means you're doing your job.

And a fine damn job you do, most consistently progressive blogger out there, well reasoned, tough and principled. And I read a lot of blogs.

Keep giving them hell, and don't back down.

Although it was a publication significantly smaller than TIME, the first time I was published the cover of the magazine said this month they were featuring the work of "Jeff Bowers", which should of read "Mark Bowers", i.e. me.  

I also find it telling that the staffers are unnamed.  Even it is due to their junior-ness I don't really respect their hiding in the shadows mentality.  Sure, they post on here when the trip to the ATM seemed too far, but when real debate heats up and the criticism comes flying around I rarely if ever see a staffer or a politician participating.  

Don't mean to be off-topic here, but since one of the top posters said he didn't like Matt's style or the content of his posts, I have to weigh in.

Heck, I often come to MyDD just hoping Stoller's posted something. So, Matt, keep up the good work. Don't change your style. And the content's been great. You're one of my favorite writers on the web.

It took me a long time working on campaigns to realize that I not only had to think of office holders as politicians (people who heed their own interests in service of getting and staying elected and occassionally governing) but also as people (individuals who can get hurt or be made happy). It is really easy to forget they are human. Sometimes they forget. Sometimes we ask them to be super human.

I think taking criticism and being willing to suffer fools gladly is part of their job. But I also try to remember they do have feelings. They ought to be above letting their feelings get in the way of doing their jobs, but they don't always. So I try to treat them like other people as much as possible. If they won't let me, I figure that is their problem and loss.

Part of the problem, I think, is that people have a hard time differentiating criticism of actions from criticisms of character.  This applies to both sides -- criticizer & criticized.  

It sounds stupid, but it's true.  Everyone needs to take a breath, wait 5 minutes, and read it (whatever it is) again.  Then respond.