It's unbelievable that 50 Senators were corralled in a few days to respond to a media outlet they formerly respected, and basically call Broder a liar.  The legacy of triangulating against your own party to appear strong, at least within the Democratic Party, is over.

I couldn't agree more -- particularly given that Joe Lieberman was one of those Senators. While the statement by the Senators notably left out the issue of Iraq, it was nonetheless surprisingly strong for being unanimous.

Matt seems to view this Broder-pushback as a tipping point, if so I completely agree. The immediacy of the response is tied to the truth of the response. (When Mo Vaughn played for the Red Sox he said that hitting big-league fastballs came down to this: See-Read-Explode... same with the left blogosphere when outrageous untruths are perpetrated against us.)

Good post, Matt.   You have proved that it is possible to be in the trees and see the forest at the same time.

the question to me as I heard it and according to Hotline - was

"Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?"

to me this question points out the incoherentness of having a strategy on a global level that protects against basque separatists and the Virginia tech shooter.

I realize no one cares about accuracy but it's important.

for instance the gun questioin was "in your adult life, have you ever kept a gun in the house"

    Matt says "In the 1970s, new technology changed the culture of politics within both parties and the media to empower a different set of actors.  It created incentives for antipartisan behavior, for triangulation, and for appeasement to business coalitions." This may very well be true, but it would be helpful if Matt could explain what technology he was referring to and how it affected  political actions. It's an interesting concept.    

Right on the nose, Matt.  It's been kinda stunning, really, to watch the Dems in Congress gain confidence this spring.  They're feeling the wind at their back, for the first time ever, when they take on the GOP and its media enablers, and they're starting to feed off the strength of that wind.

We're that wind.

It's enough to give a guy some hope about this country's future.

Its very important to call attention to this as a way of further reinforcing it.

Right now, the media is Public Enemy #1. They are what's keeping the Republicans from falling totally apart. They are what's enabling Bush's continued anti-Constitutional rampage.  They are the ones launching baseless attack after baseless attack on every Democrat in sight.  Most of the GOP is far too busy covering their own corrupt asses to being taking any shots at the Democrats right now.

And so it should be perfectly clear that now is prime time for taking on the media and seriously changing their behavior.

Bush Time is over, bozos. The truth fucking matters now.

A couple years ago, and to a certain extent still today, the big topic on the left was how could we duplicate the incredible machine the right wingers had built up over 30 years that tied their whole message together, came up with innovative policy ides, and whatnot.  Some people effectively said that we need to replicate their result our own way, instead of just copying them.  This post helps illustrate why those people were right.

The Heritage Foundation and Fox News are impressive examples, but their net effect boils down to providing encouragement, cover, and ideas for politicians who wanted to take our country rightward.  Their vaunted control of the debate depended on there not being any organized resistance to call bullshit on their fabrications.  This post goes to show that we don't need direct counterparts to those institutions to be able to provide those same services AND neutralize their side, at least a little.

I think Broder was trying to move the Overton window in his direction.  Is it possible to fail?  No, there's lots of talk about Reid as an embarassment now, so his column has succeeded (in a narrow sense) in pushing the meme into the spotlight.  But the negative feedback he's gotten has got to hurt.

The question is, can this nonpartizan behavoir by the demos last? Right now the Democarats have been pushed so hard by Rove and Cheny and that president that they basically have to band together.

But what happens when that is no longer the case as is inevitable?  There are two points where the real gut checks will come:

1) As the primaries get really heated.  I mean face it: folks here might be in the middle of the election cycle but folks here are also not normal, they are political addicts hoping for a Democratic resurgance to counter the Repubs.  Everything is good.  But what happens when real choices have to be made?   We already see around here posters who favor one candidate over another get their panties in a twist at a moments notice.  What happens when the election season really takes off?

2) When the left and center wings of the Democrats realizes that the leaders of the party are not much different than the Republicans and they can no longer stomach the similarities.  So far the blogosphere like here, Atrios, etc have provided a great outlet for the most progressive amongst us but can they hold the party together?

I agree there is no need to copy the Republicans except in the way they never let up.  I feel like the Left revels in each important but little victory as if it is a sign of imminent success. To move the ball  to the left (sorry) there needs to be continuous pressure on multiple fronts simultaneously--forever. That's how Republicans think. The game is always on for them.

Matt's post shows how this kind of ongoing, real time pressure/support is developing into a major political tool.

 I don't see how they recover from this!... it's a major blunder and it's going to damage their credibil....

 Oh! Sorry, apparently Chris Matthews hijacked my account there for a second...

Which is why we can't have Obama or HRC as our nominee.  They hate the netroots because we dared to challenge them.  HRC, BO, and Lieberman need to go down.

And Edwards is doing this because he thinks it's a winning strategy.  Even his critics should be emboldened by his choice - if you think he's pandering, it's kind of neat that there is an incentive to pander in this direction.

I said the same exact thing about Edwards after the first FNC debate was canceled, when I opined that it was just as promising if Edwards was being prudent as if he was being courageous:

Edwards had... a base of supporters [in progressives and Nevada labor] who might be peeved if he did show up. This incident shows that John Edwards has the right friends, and after Roger Ailes threatened him last night, it seems he has the right enemies too.

There's a lot more to say about this theme, I hope you stick with it. The netroots are making it easier for our leaders to act on principle, or forcing them to pander the right way.

Matt,

I agree with you about the impact of the technology.  The Dem base now has a way to organize and give collective voice to our point of view. I disagree profoundly with your view about how progressives should utilize this new tool in our efforts to pursue political power and influence public policy.

Based on what I have read here and in other threads, particularly your incredible (and incredibly offensive) screed criticizing Obama's foreign policy speech, you and many others here seem to think that an uncompromising, in-your-face, politically-correct stance is the key to power and policy.  I disagree.  

The net is a great tool, and this is a great site, but remenmber that this site, as large as it is (throw in Move-on and Kos, too), is only a tiny fraction of a percent of the entire country.  It is easy and dangerous to slip into group think.

Our candidates need to win election, self-identified liberals/progressives are less than 30% of the voting population.  We have to find a way to get to 51%. I am not talking about DLC centrism, with its soul-sucking embrace of corporatism, nor am I talking about triangulation.  

I am talking about packaging progressive values and policies in language and frames that allow them to be accessible and acceptable to the third of voters in the mushy-middle.  I am also talking about giving our candidates a little breathing space from demands for absolute political correctness during the campaign so that they can position themselves to win.

You seem oblivious to the risk of over-reaching.  Perhaps it is a generational thing, I am approaching 50, and I have spent more than 35 years actively engaged in lefty, progressive politics.  I have lost a hell of a lot more battles than I have won.  I have been humbled by the rise of Reagan and Gingrich, astonished by the ability of Rove to manipulate the media and the public.  I am tired of loosing on principle.  I am tired of moral victories.
I respect your passion, but be careful not to overreach.