Hillary is the next NeoDem Zellocrat I'd like to see knocked from her perch of power. It's too late to do it this year, but 08 is just around the political corner.

Cogent analysis of where we stand. Perfect day for it, I might add!

Glad someone agrees with me.

Finally.  I've been arguing for years that the 'values' debate was an attempt to turn the foundation of our dialogue to one favorable to Republicans.  Principles always trump values.  Look at any material on values clarification.  Values are about preferences:  evanescent, transient, impermamnent and personal.  I value temperate weather, chocolate ice cream, humor.  Priciples are about those eternal truths for which we are preepared to die and accept as a nation.  Principles divide us.  Values divide us.

Anyone looking for  a theme which is at once national and local, this is it.  What do progressives stand for?  Principles.  Constitutional principles.  And that is true whether one is addressing broad national issues like snooping or healthcare or more local issues.  It's true whether we are discussing the lack of Congressional oversight, or corporate theiving, or equal treatment or roads and bridges, or education or other aspects of the nation's welfare.

And it is the perfect means by which to differentiate Progressives from Conservatives and the way they have looted the nation by pandering to values rather than the discipline of principles.

Time to resurrect the Constitution and the principles it embodies.

"I haven't commented on Peter Daou and Jerome Armstrong..."

You gotta typo there.

So Stoller...if Hillary had made the offer to you instead of Daou, would you have turned it down?

Also, Barbara Boxer, who you adore (and I like too, don't get me wrong) is raising money for Hillary Clinton on the Actblue page you link.  Along with Bingaman, Byrd, Conrad, Nelson, Feinstein and Kennedy all of whom are very safe.  If she were serious about a Dem majority, she wouldn't waste her time raising money for Clinton or Kennedy for sure, and the rest only slightly less so.

Maybe its just paybeck for lieberman taking bill to the woodshed in 1998

Perhaps all of us should visit her website and thank her for making the correct decision.  I firmly believe good behaviour should be rewarded.

Bob Casey is not a "right-wing reactionary." I am a liberal Democrat and a staunch supporter of the netroots and I think Bob Casey is a little too conservative on a number of matters like abortion, gun control, gay rights, and some other issues, but he is a good Democrat and would surely not be as conservative as Ben Nelson or Mark Pryor or others. Let's stop bashing other Democrats except for the ones that undermine the party like Lieberman and focus on kicking Republican ass.

...the age of Stoller: 13¾.

Kidding. (Really.)

Except - this?

Right now, Senators are completely bewildered by what's going on 'out there'.  They don't have the political apparatus to understand the nascent progressive movement and factor that into their political calculations, but it's not clear if that's because they don't want the information or if it's because they are just uneducated.

I'm fairly sure that a lot of MCs (apart from Brer Stevens!) are un-savvy about the net in general, and the lefty sphere in particular.

What I'm not sure of is whether said MCs really believe that the the nascent progressive movement is more than a figment of the imagination of a rather loud group of enthusiasts.

Turning up to gladhand at YKos is one thing; adjusting campaign actions or policies to move towards netroots positions (so far as they exist) is quite another.

When you go on to say

The move to upgrade their political machinery, and take into account the netroots, means two things.  One, it means that these politicians are now taking our concerns into account.  Two, it means that when they make a political move that cuts against the progressive movement, they expressly know the political consequences.  

It might mean that the pols think of the netroots as the hula-hoop or yo-yo de nos jours. Something that the old guys think they need to be hep to to show they're not completely clapped out.

A fad that will fade.

Or else, it might mean that they're genuinely concerned with the netroots - at least as far as the trouble that dissent from that quarter might cause the campaign - and are therefore choosing to invite them inside the tent for the duration, following which they will be edged out.

Or else, something different again.

And when you say

they expressly know the political consequences.

You're calling a game that's barely into the third inning (perhaps fourth - sports not my thing!). And in a tone which invites that dreaded teenager tag that the MSM pundits delight in handing out to bloggers.

Thus, when you say,

Joe Lieberman is learning that what he thinks is principle is just selfish arrogance.  

My disagreement is more with tone than content (I'm still pondering the substance of the Ned/Joe thing); but then, I reckon tone is rather important.

Stoller has just articulated why I, an ardent Democrat for the 58 years I have been old enough to vote, haven't given a cent to the Democratic Party for the last 5 years. I dole my contributions out to the individuals standing for the ideals the Democratic Party. I have donated directly to at least 12 Democrats in seven different states in the last four primaries, hand-picked always by me. The Democratic Party will need to return to its roots, remember where it came from and what it has always stood for to  get any support financial or otherwise from me.

Yeah, fella. You're all wet.   Lets elect more reactionaries.  That's what sells.  The trend is your friend.  Don't rock the boat or go against the tide.  STFU.  The dlc people and the dkosacrats are swell, you know, except for their stands on the issues, you know, like abortion, equal treatment, freedom of speech, separation of Church & State and all that trivial meaningless crap that no real Americans and true Democrats care about anyways.

The Democratic Party is built on enlarging the middle class and using government for the common good.  This is the opposite of the Republicans who favor limited government and taxation, and let the chips fall where they may, i.e. into vast disparities of income and wealth.

The Democrats need to be flexible in providing a vision which appeals to the urban, suburban, exurban, and rural voters, as well as to all 50 states.  So many Democratic candidates will not meet the litmus tests of a strict progressive agenda.  To expect that they all will is unrealistic unless you want the Democrats to be a minority party forever.  To expect that they should doesn't recognize that there are regional variances of opinion on issues.

Some of the best legislation passed in this country was a partnership of liberals and southern conservatives.  What did they have in common?  They fought for the little guy and built the middle class.  Even thought the Republicans have divided the country on god, guns, and gays, essentially nothing has changed and this coalition could be in existence today.  This is especially true because race is not the issue it was in the 1960's and before.

The country is yearning for a populist government and effective leadership that only the Democrats can provide.  The Democrats need to be united in their overreaching goals - building the middle class, protecting the country, and supporting the Bill of Rights.  Once they do this, they would be a majority party for decades.

Matt,

Try to focus, buddy.  SANTORUM is the right-wing reactionary; Casey is the Democratic alternative.  SANTORUM is the incumbent; Casey is our chance to defeat the incumbent and add another Democrat to the Senate.  OK?

On another note, presenting all the HRC votes that rub you the wrong way is NOT presenting the entire record; in fact, listing the minimum wage vote is particularly (deliberately?) misleading as she has been one of the most eloquent senators in demanding an increase in the minimum wage.  

Attacking Casey and Clinton is a perfect example of the circular firing squad and apparently we need no trolls to get the squad lined up.

First of all, it's called "PAC for a change" not "Take Back Congress" and I don't believe that she is taking money "from progressive donors almost entirely to conservative Democratic incumbents."  I think she is raising money for Democrats who are up for re-election.

Yes, she gave money to Bill Nelson, but I think a bit of that was earned when we thought that was going to be a tight race.

Maria Cantwell is in the same boat, she is up for a tight race this November, as is Debbie Stabenow.  Both of whom are pro-choice women Senators which is probably another large factor.

Francine Busby has earned the most money from her ActBlue page and nobody was talking about her place on the liberal to moderate spectrum a month ago before the election.

I don't know anything about David Roth but I know he is running against someone (Mary Bono) who is a moderate Republican.

And Robert Byrd is liberal from the word go and Bernie Sanders is so friggin liberal he isn't even a Democrat!

The bottom line is that I believe you've made a broad generalization that isn't fair to what Barbara Boxer is trying to do - help Democrats who have tough reelection battles.

Or- to put another way- you can't have a center without a viable left to counter overly powerful right. This is the core thesis that even some conservatives are realizing is a truism of politics. When one gets passed the personalities, the disagreements on various issues- this is the core problem: we have an extremely powerful right, and a weak left. This can not be good for anyeone who is either in teh center or to the left. The only people who benefit are far right choices.

As a PA voter and Democrat, I think it is way out of line to call Bob Casey a "right-wing reactionary." He may not be with the majority of Democrats on abortion, but he is a vote for a higher minimum wage, against Bush's tax cuts, and for expanding healthcare. Bob Casey will not only be a vote on many progressive pieces of legislation unlike Rick Santorum, he will also be a vote for Sen. Reid as Majority Leader. This kind of smear is unproductive

Matt - Since all elected officials in your book live in a "bubble", how often do you go out and talk to average voters, not netroots activists?  I ask because living in NY, we have a novel way for candidates to get on the ballot - gathering signatures from registered voters.  As it is now "petition period" as we call it, I have been on the street gathering signatures for our local Assemblyman and speaking with voters as part of that process.  It is a pain but it gets you in contact with non-activist voters.  While most agree with us in the netroots on the war in Iraq, their concerns are much more about the economy, terrorism (this is NYC so it is always in people's minds), the extremes of the Repub party, etc than Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Joe Lieberman.  

I love the netroots or else I wouldn't comment here all the time.  However, I am realistic about what we represent - political activists who want to change the party and elect progressive Dems.  This is very different from representing the views and thoughts of average voters.  The 2 are not the same.  We will be a lot more effective in our efforts if we keep in perspective who and what we represent.

The overall point in Matt Stoller's post "Today we live in a time of the politics of principle, not the politics of compromise" is more important than the digressions about Boxer or Casey.  

I think Matt is right about the forest, not necessarily the trees.  

Let's look at the Republicans.  The great compromisers on thier side, Bob Dole and the old warhorses deposed by Newt Gingrich come to mind, were put out to a viagra filled pasture years ago.  David Broder moarns thier passing.  Sometimes I do too. Another way to see it is that politics is more polorized these days than at anytime since the early 1970's.

My guess is that 2008 will pit a compromiser -- probably Hillary -- against somebody who runs as an apostle of principle, perhaps Feingold.  Both qualities are important, think FDR -- who embodied both.  Perhaps there is an opening for a pragmatist who is grounded in principle but has an instinct for getting things done, Clark or Edwards?  

Anyway, this was a real contrabution to the debate on our side.  Big ideas are important.

I don't understand Matt's essay (I'm new to this, perhaps essay isn't the right word).  He is so critical of Hilary's political positions, yet concludes that she has a "good heart."  

I'm a supporter, in MA, of Bonifaz and Patrick -- that stakes out a position I guess.  

Hilary is not my first choice as a presidential candidate; but her record -- in the Senate and in her life -- makes clear that she is a liberal.  Her relative conservatism in the Senate is, almost certainly, a product of her national ambitions and perhaps also her goal to be more effective in the Senate -- in the face of a reputation that she brought to the Senate of being extremely liberal.

I was opposed to the war in Iraq, felt it was a betrayal of the true goal to deal with the perpetrators of the attack on the World Trade Center and a very dangerous act by a president opposed to nation building.  

I was disappointed with the nominations of Gore and Kerry -- primarily because they were both wooden campaigners.  Had either of them been president in 2001; had Hilary been president in 2001 --  we would not have had this particular, awful war.  I'm not at all certain which of them (or which of our other interesting candidates) would be most effective in ending the war while meeting our moral and international obligations that have arisen from the war.  Surely, however, any of them would be better than the current president; better than any conceivable Republican candidate.

Let's approach the conversations running up to the 2006 and the 2008 elections with that confidence in all of the Democratic candidates (except Joe, of course, whose support of the war and of George Bush is qualitatively different from that of most other Democrats).  

LenL

Commendable.

Matt,
You wrote:

Unfortunately, to bring America back to an age of political pragmatism, we must excise this cancer from our politics.  That means standing on principle and fighting against the encroachment on American values that this innovative group of political actors intends.

This is curious, as "Pragmatism" usually stands in political discourse as the opposite of "principle". For example, Republicans hated Bill Clinton's pragmatism; they said it showed that he had no principles. The Monica Lewinsky episode made this charge easier to sustain.

On the other hand, President Bush has been impervious to pragmatism, preferring to be guided in everything by "principles," such as the principle that the problem with America is that rich people don't have enough money.

So your advocacy of principled pragmatism needs further explanation of how you reconcile this union of political opposites.

Bob Schacht