It's simple, really.

Most are terrified of "the mob".  And they see us as one.

And if they see us for what we really are, it scares them even more.

Because it has the potential to make what they want to be, or what they are - gatekeepers - at most irrelevant, and at least harder to be so.

Those few that do get it among the gatekeepers should realize that there's a role for them in all of this - interpreter of the scene - but then they will have to admit that they have to work a lot harder for their living, and frankly, too many of them have gone to seed.

Mr. Froomkin, for example, gets it.  Neither of the Marshalls do.

Josh had a life before becoming a DC insider.  He made himself small.  Then he started blogging, and made himself bigger.  Now it's back to small again.

I turn to him for an insider perspective.  A bit of a dissident insider, like a youngish rouge dandy at court.  But that's pretty slim pickins when it comes to the wisdom department. So I've never really expected it from there.  And now that more insiders are blogging, well, he's become his own little institution now, and I don't even go to his site for him anymore.

In short, I'm not surprised.

This is pretty funny, something he sure didn't see coming. It appears with these comments of his that he was patronizing us Bolsheviki a bit on Lamont-Lieberman, and he's a little galled that we were right and his neoliberal pals were wrong.

IMHO Josh Marshall is invaluable, and deserves a lot of credit for delving into the backstories behind the news.  He is incredibly perceptive when it comes to sorting out the layers of intrigue that lie beneath the surface of the political landscape.

I get a little frustrated with his centrist tendencies from time to time, but I think a pretty good case can be made that Josh has positioned himself in a place where he can move some independents and even some moderate Republicans in our direction.  Many of our most fervent progressive bloggers are bombastic and profane and intense enough that they would lose the audience that Josh can speak to.

I think he's dead wrong about the Lamont-Lieberman race; he doesn't seem to get the urgency and importance of winning this one.   But he's a hell of a writer and one of the good guys, and will always have my gratitude.

WTF? If I play poker with somebody like these weirdos, they lose and then they don't pay up, I'm supposed to get all philosophical about the implications of that, and accept that they don't really need to pay up? Fuck them assholes. And I was all ready to pay in full, in hard green cash? Those are the kinds of situations where people get broken legs in the neighborhood where I come from.

Josh is smart and realizes politics is judged by expectations. That is why he taps dipshits to guest-blog, when he gets back from vacation we're all delighted to read what he is saying.

I will step up for Marshall (and his wife, whom I also knew as an acquaintance in college.)  Both are very decent people unless they have changed substantially in the last 15 years, which is possible but I find exceptionally unlikely.  I mention this because there has been an unfortunate tendency among commenters on a few blogs to take personal shots at him, so I counter with an "anti-shot."  This is a business disagreement, which intelligent and strong personalities will have in every field, including but not primarily politics.

To disagree with someone's analysis sharply does not require that we attribute bad faith to him, unless we have fallen into the concept of "inherently dishonest ideas" per Ayn Rand.  I gather that the liberal blogosphere has not fallen in love with Rand behind my back.  Even in my libertarian days, I regarded her as a whackjob, though an interesting one.  

We have gotten so jaded with bad faith garbage from Lieberman that we are tempted to attribute it to anyone who isn't going with the flow.  If Marshall wanted to play along and make nice to play some con, he wouldn't have gone where we went.  My own view is probably very similar to Stoller's - brand identity is crucial to a party as much or more as it is to a can of soda, and Coke would not let middle management moonlight for RC Cola as a brand competition consultant while keeping a desk at Coke HQ.  They would fire his ass.  So I disagree - respectfully - with my old Princeton alum Josh.

But the bad faith stuff I have seen around the liberal blogs against Marshall - not against the reprehensible Liebermanm, against Marshall - should end.  People have the right to be wrong, myself included.

Take a gander at the DSCC page on the CT race (http://www.dscc.org/2006races/ct/) under "Latest Press Releases and News Clips" and you'll see that the DSCC is actively working against the Democratic nominee. They've got four Lieberman promotional puff pieces on the page.

They don't run promotional puff pieces for other candidates running against Democrats, so why are they running the Lieberman promos?

I suggest that everyone contact the DSCC and ask them to remove the materials ASAP. A copy of my own pissed-off letter to them can be found at http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/8/ 20/232855/781/57#57.

You can reach them at info@dscc.org. If anyone has a better email address, please post it. Thanks.

My impression is that Josh's perspective may be skewed by a disproportionate amount of hate mail he's receiving.  His recent support for the lunatic Israeli adventure in Lebanon seemed predicated as much on anti-Semitic emails he received as on actually thinking through what was going on.  (And BTW kudos to Billmon who has been on fire on this issue, with hindsight he called every play exactly right.)

Similarly, I'm now guessing that Josh is reading more into anti-Lieberman hate mails than he should.  There's always going to be a lunatic fringe, and on the internet they can make themselves appear disproportionately large.  But outside of private emailing, as Matt says the blogs have not been guilty of the kind of intolerance that Josh accuses them of.

Frankly, given Rove's mentors, I wouldn't be surprised if there's an element of Segretti-style ratfucking going on with such correspondence.....

I think Josh sees the race as relatively unimportant "because it's a safe Democratic seat".  He's still in the mindset that "Lieberman = Democrat" and, somehow, that's all that we should want.  In other words, he's completely blind to what has been motivating the Lamont crowd the entire time, and insensitive to just how absurd it should be viewed for Lieberman to try to still portray himself as a Democrat.  

Those of us on the left who have been supporting the Democrats for the past decade, even when the party was far too conservative for our tastes, were doing so with the implied notion that, if/when our own candidates win any primary, the party will support them in the general election.  The refusal of the party to put all its weight behind Lamont is essentially a betrayal of the progressive wing.  We've been playing by what we thought were the rules, but apparently "support the party nominee" only applies when the nominee is from the DLC-wing of the party, when it's "too divisive" to support the liberal dissenter.

Lieberman is not running as a Democrat.  This really needs to be understood by the party leadership.  John Kerry gets that, and so do Howard Dean and the Clintons.  But we still face a situation where getting the party leadership behind the party's candidate is frustratingly hard to do.  

What does it say to the Connecticut Democrats when the national party takes such a dismissive attitude towards them?  If the national party is happy to take anybody from the state who caucuses with them, regardless of whether his backers are actual Democrats or whether they are Republicans?  It means that loyalty is no longer a 2-way street.

Progressive Democrats are not content with "anybody who caucuses with us" as a standard in this race.  Not after we've been playing by the rules for so long, and Lieberman decides to change them simply for his own selfish ends.

I must say, however, that I can't help but somewhat agree with his point that we liberal bloggers are sometimse too quick to cast aspersions on those who either supported Lieberman or weren't sufficiently against Lieberman, in spite of actual votes (and it is, after all, votes that matter most) that solidly affirm their liberal credentials. Now, don't get me wrong, I support Lamont, I have donated to Lamont's campaign, and had I lived in Connecticut, I would not only have voted for him but would have actively campaigned for him as well. However, it seems to me that sometimes people fall into the trap of being fair-weather friends. Take, for example, Barbara Boxer. One of Progressive Punch's top 5 most liberal senators, and a scion of not only progressive thought and talk, but action (remember, votes). However, as soon as she opens her mouth in support of Lieberman (regardless of whether or not it is "right,") everybody can't distance themselves from her quickly enough...in spite of her years of unflagging dedication to the very causes we champion here. I am not criticizing so much the sentiment of disagreement; it is indubitably every individual's right to dissent. However, I can't reconcile the speed and vitriol with which the masses soured on such an important ally. Why couldn't we just censure her support of Lieberman, rather than extrapolate her support for her friend (and, unfortunately, longstanding friendship does matter in practice, even if it seems impertinent in theory) into some sort of regressive cancer enveloping her entire persona, as if it tainted her entire Senate career (that is, until she started supporting Lamont...then she was back in our good graces)?

This "scarlet lettering," "swiftboating," or whatever else you want to call it not only extends to Senators and other MCs, however. Recently, on DailyKos, I was alarmed to see that, in the course of a debate between a few users wherein one writer advocated devoting more energy to defeating Santorum, Burns, etc. rather than dedicating the lion's share of our time, money, etc. to Lieberman, the dissenters immediately and speciously labeled the the original poster a supporter of Lieberman. When the now-branded writer responded, logically, that it is at best spurious and counterproductive to baselessly "accuse" him of supporting Lieberman simply because he thinks the dozens of other important races in the country deserve their fair share of attention, their attacks of "Lieberman lover," etc. only intensified, as if it were the worst insult that could ever be slung. It immediately brought to mind the 1950s fad of labeling somebody a Communist, for being even vaguely suspected, whether it is true or a complete fabrication, of supporting Lieberman or not supporting Lamont enough (what is, after all, enough?). I couldn't believe my eyes; it was a shameful display. And what could the poster do? No matter how he tried to defend himself, citing his ardent support of Lamont and progressive causes, he was continually and rapaciously dragged through the mud, as it were, of Lieberman support.

I think it is important to realize that no matter how much we dislike Lieberman, and how much we support Lamont, we do have to behave in a civilized and rational manner. Using "Lieberman supporter" as a whopper of an insult is not only childish, but often completely false. Be this as it may, it is enough these days to lead to being called a "troll" or worse. It is not a crazy idea, for example, that as bad a Joe Lieberman is, he still can't hold a candle to the pernicious scum that is Rick Santorum. And given recent polls showing staggering gains for Santorum at Casey's expense, it would seem that this is, for example, a race that by all rights deserves a siphoning of the 24/7 Lamont/Lieberman show of support, as do the races in Ohio, Missouri, Montana, etc. Moreover, we shouldn't completely turn on friends like Barbara Boxer simply for supporting her friend, right or wrong. We have to think practically and pragmatically, not only idealistically. She did the right thing by coming back to the flock, but we shouldn't have blackballed her for supporting an incumbent Democrat and a longtime friend and colleague in the primary, especially in light of her years of progressive service and votes.

It will be a rude awakening in November if we have kicked Joe Lieberman out but still have Santorum, Talent, and Burns, and a Republican majority. Is it worth it?

1) Name a name.  Don't just be irked by unspecified irksome tendencies, which of course don't allow for a rebuttal.

I don't really think Josh was asking for a rebuttal, but just making an observation that was a digression from his main topic, namely, how much energy should we be putting into the Lamont-Lieberman saga? Interestingly, though, this post of yours seem to be a good example of someone in the liberal blogosphere taking someone to task for even posing this question.

2) Related but distinct from (1), why take on phantom opponents on your own side?  Where is this mythical group, do they have any power, and assuming they don't, why does the fact that some small and largely irrelevant group of people thinks something you don't like have any credence for your strategic sensibility?

The mythical group is the pro-Lamont liberal blogosphere (natch), its power is debatable, and it probably has credence because he's been getting so many emails on the subject, and so he felt compelled to address it.

3) Where is your outrage at those who support Lieberman, like NARAL, the Sierra Club, LCV, and all those who tacitly support him like Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, etc?  Why don't they merit a rebuke?

How do you know he doesn't disapprove? I recall a post at TPM on the topic of Lieberman where he says "F--- him", so I'm fairly certain he doesn't feel warm and fuzzy about it.

Josh is a legend, but from the 'everyone in DC likes Lieberman' line to the inability to take a position until after the primary, he has repeatedly showed a certain narrow perspective in this Lieberman-Lamont race, an unwarranted sympathy for the insider crowd and a distressed recoil at newcomers. I suspect it's because he has lots of neoliberal friends who hate the activist blogosphere and talk in terms of their impression of our tendencies instead of what we say and write.

Come on, do you really need to use this much innuendo and hyperbole? It's starting to sound downright McCarthy-like, and further reinforces his digression above. Nobody knows why Josh took the opinion he did, nor does he have to explain why.

I agree with Marshall.  There is a very strong whiff of the Terror about this.

What if Lieberman wins?  What then?

I found it especially idiotic how so many opposed support for Lieberman during the primary.  Lieberman is or was a Democrat.  Supporting a sitting democrat is not only smart, but good politics.

I don't agree with Lieberman's support for the war or his kissing George, but he is a democrat.

Boxer did the right thing to support Lieberman.

That's what pols do - they support the incumbents of their own party.  This was the right thing to do, and anyone who says she is wrong is quite frankly a totally ignorant politically naive dummy.

I love you Matt -- and you know I do -- but I think you are on the wrong side of this one.

1) I think there is an over-focus on Lamont-Lieberman, and posted as such on Daily Kos.  I was quickly slapped down and asked where were my diaries on other races.  Of course, I have written extensively on NJ7 and -- interestingly -- on Lamont Lieberman, but the knee-jerk response was not to check my diaries but to slap at me.  I've experienced that personally and read it in other comment threads, as well.

2) We are the threat, but I don't think it is malicious or irrelevant.  I think that we simply risk shooting our wad on CT-Sen and not having enough shot left for other races.  I know it is true with me.  When I read the post from TPM Reader DK I realized that I had been obsessing with the Lamont/Lieberman race to the detriment of my own local race in NJ7.  I am still interested in L/L, but refocused my efforts back where they will do the most good.  I think that the argument against obsessing on CT-Sen is constructive criticism for friends and colleagues, and not an attempt to identify a fifth column.

3) Essays, and especially blog entries, are by their very nature limited in focus.  He was not talking about everything and everyone that is wrong in CT-Sen, but about a single focused topic that interested him.  But you picked an outside topic and injected it to the argument.  It's a rhetorical device that degrades discussion.

To clarify.  Sierra Club has made no endorsement yet in the Connecticut Senate race--not in the primary, not the in general.  Thanks,

Dave Willett, Sierra Club Press Secretary

Lot of lost folks on this thread.

Loserman is not the kind of Democrat I want to support. For obvious reasons. Chief among them his his determination to keep his seat, no matter what, which shows very nicely what the current political class is about. Holding on to power. Voters, democracy...be quiet you little people.

Boxer and DiFi are the same...Hill, Schumer, Emmanuel all the same.

They care nothing for the welfare of the people; at least, as it conflicts with what their PAC money and corporatist backers want.

Boxer and DiFi are my Senators and whenever their names come up my fellow progressives snarl. They are in power because people believe that they are somehow on their side.

A brief check of their voting records shows that they vote for the money which put them in office; just like Joe.

There is only one party in this country at present The Party of Money and if you fail to understand this you will never grasp what is truly at stake in CT.

Democracy itself.

As for the 'good', 'caring' Josh....

I deleted his bookmark yesterday. With friends like him progressives don't need Rove to end up fucked.

very recently he did reflecct on what he saw as an overall change in his approach--on his becoming more explicitly anti-Lieberman as a result of the comments by Lieberman that a Lamont victory would result in another terrorist attack--all that stuff that led to journalists asking if Lamont was the 'Al Qaeda candidate' etc.  Here's the quote from Marshall (Aug 11, 2006):

Here at TPM Media, as many techish companies do, we have a little internal chat system where we discuss editorial business and other topics through the course of the day. And yesterday, after I saw Greg Sargent's update that Lieberman was going down the 'A win for Lamont will be a victory for the terrorists' track, I openned up our chat and wrote something to the effect of, "I've always liked Joe, but with this 'victory for the terrorists', it's enough. F--k him."

Justin Rood shot back, you should write that. And he's right. So here I am.

Readers of this site know I've always had a soft spot for Lieberman. I was ambivalent about the primary race, didn't have a horse in it, I think I said. And it only became a simple matter for me after Lamont won. He's the Democratic candidate. End of story. Not because I felt differently about Lieberman necessarily. But I think all Democrats, all progressives, liberals, whatever, should support the Democratic candidate. And that's Ned Lamont. That and tell Lieberman to get out of the race.

But now Lieberman is not only running as the de facto Republican in the race, he's running as the worst sort of Republican, going on the trail claiming that any serious questioning of our policy in Iraq is a victory for the terrorists, even pulling in yesterday's terror plot take-down into his angle against Lamont. With Lamont, those guys might have blown up the plane. Leaving Iraq is a win for the terrorists. A Lamont win is a win for the terrorists. That was after Wednesday when Joe pledged to save the Democratic party from the extremists he seems to think make up the entire Democratic party. Except for Joe.

So questioning the president's policy on Iraq is a win for the terrorists. The Democratic party is outside the mainstream of American politics. I can go to Republicans for that, right?

So it's not just about the independent candidacy any more. It's about him. Enough. Just leave. (link)

That seems pretty close to quite a number of positions amongst Democrats that have been praised by Progressive bloggerrs in the past week.

I've always thought that Marshall has wanted to be seen as the true inheritor of the so-called "impartial jouralism ethos"--which set him apart from MyDD, DKos, etc. who always reached for a 'partisan' approach (self described).  

But given Marshall's size and scope, I wonder if we shouldn't see his bogus comments about over-zealous anti-Lieberman feelings as more a product of his own discomfort with his limited partisan turn than a real lashing out.  

I mean, Marshall would even blog the bombing of Hiroshima with that kind of forced understatement ("Bomb falls on Japan. A blogger comments.").  He wants to be the Hemmingway of bloggers.  So, isn't the very fact that he is complaining about Lieberman at least a sign that a more engaged,more partisan approach, has had a deep impact on his style--has gotten him to shift a bit?

I guess what I'm saying is that I am not convinced that his comments were really damaging to bloggers advocating for a more aggressive take-down of Lieberman, so much as a sign that Marshall's approach has shifted towads the kind of partisanship MyDD wants to see.  Which would mean that the radical hierarchical imbalance between TPM and the rest of the blogs has been levelled considerably since the CT primary--and that is a good thing.  

Lanny Davis was frothing at the mouth with outrage over COMMENTS on blog entries. Not even about blog entries, but about comments made by people who are probably anonymous.

Yet, where is Lanny when Imus likens Lamont to the nutso pervert who claims to have murdered Jon Benet? Imus is not the only Lieberman supporter to have said something outrageous.

Also JOsh Marshall should realize that the only reason why we need to apply pressure on senators for supporting Lamont is that Lieberman is demonizing the party for his own benefit. LIeberman used his incumbency and party connections to get people who disagreed with him on policy to support him before the primaries. So it is fair turnaround in a race that is going to get uglier.

I am on your side in this dispute but I think you need to lighten up. I hate Lieberman and hate people who do not hate him but Josh is arguing against absolutism and impractility. Having listened to both sides of the discussion I think there is merit in the strategy of: get a Dem majority is the highest possible priority. Which tactic is best is a matter of wonkery and should not be a divisive matter. On the other hand....

And I love you too, Matt. But that thing Josh was talking about? You're doing it right now.