Right now on the front page of MyDD, one can read the host of this site opining:

"One RCB [sic*] vote changed everything."

This analysis can only be described as either willfully ignorant or deliberately inflammatory -- because no single vote or event changed the outcome of this Democratic contest.

Such unitary theories are by nature reductive and misleading. As far as I can see, the only point of making such a statement is to generate false pity for the losing candidate, and to instigate phony theories that the election was somehow stolen from the candidate who once held all the advantages and all the cards.

That contest was won fair and square by Barack Obama -- with a lot of help from the inept Clinton campaign. So let me try to list just a few of the votes and other events which collectively "changed everything" for Hillary Clinton -- changed her candidacy from one of inevitability, to one that has embarrassed many who once supported both her and her husband's political careers...

1) Hillary voting to give Bush the power to wage a falsely-justified war;

2) Hillary relying on tired establishment figures such as Mark Penn, Harold Ickes, Terry McAuliffe and Howard Wolfson to steer her strategy and message;

3) Hillary deciding to neglect the Iowa caucuses, until it was too late, giving Obama a huge national burst of publicity and momentum;

More after the jump...

   http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/26/b ill.clinton.mon/index.html

   Here we have it folks. The latest excuse from the Clinton campaign, coming from the Big Dog himself. It's not that Hillary has run a poor campaign, it's not that Obama beat her throughout red, blue and purple America. It's now a COVER UP that will stop Hillary from being the Democratic nominee.

Unfortunately not the print version, but close enough.  Katharine Q. Seelye's latest online column, As Primaries End, Clinton Appeals Directly to Blogs is an interesting look into the Clinton campaign's strategy to ramp up its online presence in the face of what appears to be a declining amount of online buzz compared to the other candidates.  The article claims that "Mrs. Clinton is being mentioned less than half as often as Senator Barack Obama in the blogosphere and that mentions of her have even slipped below those of Senator John McCain."  To combat this, she is now taking her message directly to bloggers.  

The Clinton campaign is expanding its use of the popular microblogging platform Twitter to inform supporters of events and organize her base with "real time calls to arms," asking them in a series of posts to make calls to Oregon and Kentucky households in advance of the primary, and to sign a petition to count Michigan and Florida.  

The column goes on to discuss a bloggers-only conference call held Friday that was apparantly the one Jerome discussed in this Saturday post.  Senator Clinton also unveiled a new slogan aimed at promoting her message that she is best suited to win in November, "It is the map, not the math."  It then drops this tidbit:

The "map/math" phrase quickly found its way to various blogs, including Talkleft  and Riverdaughter. Some, like Jerome Armstrong on MyDD examined the "map/math" argument in detail.

It's widely recognized that the Obama campaign has used the internet more effectively to mobilize and expand its base of support, notably with regard to small online donations, but I think we all have to admit that the netroots are becoming a big part of politics in the US, and any increase in the use of the web by politicians can only make it easier for individuals to have a voice in campaigns and play a role in supporting their chosen candidate.

Jerome's post this morning, hinted at the biggest danger facing Democrats in the likely McCain-Obama general election match up: both candidates will be using the same overarching themes and narratives throughout the campaign. As he notes,

I haven't seen much of a dent being put into McCain's core brand (war hero, reformer, maverick) to date...If McCain is able to leverage that into becoming a "change Republican" he'll have done what Matzzie says, which is pointed out in the above examples: "Sometimes being the first person to adopt a message isn't the winner--your opponent can hijack the dialog in the media and turn it to his advantage."

This misses, however, the other massive overlap between their messages: both lay claim to the mantle of bi-partisanship, of being able to bring people together despite their differences to work out functioning compromises. For Obama, this is encapsulated by his theme of "Unity," whereas for McCain, its in his branding as a "Maverick," as distinct from the ideological, far-right Republicans. As one Republican consultant told the NY Times, "I think that by rook or by crook or by providence or just dumb luck, we nominated the one guy who continually outpolls the Republican brand."

Obama did better than expected through the huge media firestorm over Clinton's populist push for a gas tax holiday to be paid for by the oil companies. So, populism took a big hit yesterday. With skyrocketing gas prices Clinton advanced what should've been a very attractive populist issue, but was unable effectively to reach voters. The media showed its 'reality' was more influential than a Presidential candidate's reality -- a simple, clear proposal to advance the pocketbook interests of the vast majority of Democratic voters at the expense of a delicious target, a handful of price-gouging corporations.

Critical to Tuesday was the media ignoring that the gas tax holiday Obama voted for in Illinois was effective, passing 60-80% of tax relief onto motorists. And that Obama has repeatedly rewritten that Illinois reality  (i.e., lied), saying no savings at all were passed through to drivers.

Not that this was entirely the media's responsibility, Clinton campaign staffers should've dug up the above facts (I only discovered them on Monday***) and pushed them noisily.

Finally, and by the way, I don't understand what Jerome means here (grammar and spelling corrected):

Though she had a 'divide and conquer' frame of the issue that works well for a GE against a Republican, in a Democratic primary, it allowed Obama to squeeze her from the liberal viewpoint.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/7/8249/ 04946

So it turns out that WVWV, the group behind the mysterious robocalls in North Carolina, is a client of Jerome Armstrong's firm, WebStrong.

I am going to make this brief but to the point.

I have been part of the progressive netroots community since the Howard Dean rah rah days. I certainly admire and respect the successful growth & influence of the netroots community.

However, I fear that most prominent leaders of the netroots community in 2008 are about to lead us to another very disappointing loss in November.

What has transpired in the last 90 days has reminded me of all the hoopla of the Ned Lamont failed GE bid & the collapse of the Howard Dean campaign.

These past two painful defeats,  displayed front & back the deep disconnect between mainstream off-line general election voters as compared to the Left wing netroots democratic base.

Today, just like literally 50% of All Democratic voters, I strongly believe that our " prominent net leaders" are about to lead this whole community to another HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT in November.

Only this time, the implications would be Much More & the Defeat Much larger than Lamont or Dean.

There seems to be Only a Very Few bloggers who see what 50% of us see. One of them is no other than MYDD founder Jerome Armstrong. All his past writings in the last 3-4 months have indicated an unbias understanding of what Senator Barack Obama is facing in November.

While people like Markos, Chris Bowers & Matt Stoller are leading the charge for 75% of the entire netroots community who are howling, rooting & going all out on the " Obama 2008 Victory train".

Can the Obama express train take this primary ? Honestly, at this point, yes. I have already accepted that fact.

But can Sen. Obama take the train all the way to the white house?

Personally, as a loyal democrat, a proud Latino- NO!

I will vote for Senator Obama in November.

But just like half of all democrats, I fear & have accepted the very strong probability that Markos, Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson is about to lead our party to another VERY PAINFUL November. For those of us over 50 yrs of age, its 1984, 1988 all over again.

I repost this EXCELLENT link by Jerome Armstrong.
This pretty much sums up the reality. Not the Hype by the mainstream media & its netroots ally for 2008. ( Wow, how things have changed)

http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=bf 08a566-7c44-446a-aa34-7889b0f24b5a

Let me end by saying that, A Massive defeat by Sen. Barack Obama in November will be 3 steps back in terms of credibility & advancement of the netroots community. Its the 3rd ( and largest) horse that this community would have went all out & lost.

Then people here wonder why mainstream democrats never take us seriously.  Its almost a total disconnect with mainstream general election voters.

P.S. The netroots community slaps Joe Lieberman in the dem primary. The General electorate in Blue Connecticut comes back & Slaps the entire liberal netroots community upside down in the General election. This November is a movie that many of us have seen before. Some just have a stubborn short memory.

We have a very real problem here at MyDD; there's no use in beating around the bush, so I'll just say it.

We are failing as a progressive community.

Bah, you say, what right do you have to judge that? You didn't even know MyDD existed a few short weeks ago. Perhaps that's your opinion, but you're WRONG, get lost!

But the evidence is clear, and if we want to make a difference in American politics, we need to do something about it.