maybe in society in general...but within the party structure activists are non-elite. I was mainly refering to a revolution in power structure of political parties, not a revolution of power in the country in general.
But on your point, the 'elites' on the blogosphere are not disconnected from society. Political junkies drive the political discourse in the country by providing information to the majority of Americans that don't follow political news at all. The 'elites' that follow politics are the conduit by which the country forms political opinions.
label the activists "at home in their basements playing on the computer" as elites.
Screw Al From. He's the elite. The blogosphere is the people, the non-elites, forming a coalition to wrest the power away from him. The blogosphere is an organizing tool that is mobilizing a coalition of the outsiders to challenge the king-makers at the DLC, and more generally centralized politics.
There is something fundamental about the internet as a dynamic organizing tool. Traditional organizing becomes more impersonal the bigger the organization gets. Members feel less of a voice, and participation is generally less intense. The blogosphere inverts this traditional "reverse ecomony of scale." The bigger the blogospehere gets, the more personal your participation feels. DKos is proving how bigger is not only better, but better on 'per user' basis as well.
On the blogosphere political donations are open and democratic. Each person decides to whom and how much they wish to donate and are given a wide swath of choices. In the DLC and centralized organizations in general, their power and prestige is maintained by their power over money. They are the middle-man, and they have a lot to lose, if they continue being an exclusively traditional political machine.
I think they could easily morph and be a large influence in the blogosphere. But here their power would come exclusively from their persuasion, whereas before the power came from their actions.
Within the political party you have two groups, the elites and the activists. Traditionally the elites decide what roles to causes the activists behind. The activist subgroup has been traditionally unorganized within the microcosm of the political party, as far as their interests are counter to the interests of the elites. Starting with Dean, activists across the country are organizing without elites. The elites are scared, as they should be. I believe 50 years from now, Dean's candicacy will be viewed as the time the 'hidden transcript' of activists broke into the public transcript, unleashing a veritable revolution in how U.S. political parties organize, seek votes, and fund-raise. The Republicans are falling behind, but they will catch up no doubt.
you come away knowing that the guys that run it are slimebags.
I think the most salient parts are describing Guthrie's past dealings. His advocacy group was/is obviously a scam.
What about the lack of member benefits of USANext? Isn't AARP's biggest draw is its dicsounts and member activities? USANext probably comes up really short here. If you had a compact and understandable statistic that could represent the lack of member benefits at USANext, that could be picked up by the media.
this is a really crappy diary. You take the news story completely out of context. Is a judfge supposed to believe that they had sex, and he's denying it or this crazy saved semen scenario? Which would you believe if you were the judge? The normal scenario happens 1,000's of times a year. This scenario happens once, if this guy's story is even true.
The article then goes on to contradict your central point, that he is STUCK with the child support. The article actually reports that he was given the right to sue the lady in question. So the article was saying he WAS NOT STUCK with the child support anymore.
This kind of garbage should stay at the free republic. Please delete this diary, if a moderator sees this trash. It is only intend to divide people and is ot political at all. If anything this misinformation is the type of crap that drives the conservative blue-collar backlash movement of Rush Limbaugh.
that sought to get real pictures/videos of war on the news? I watched Control Room last night (which was REALLY good), and it got me thinking about how little we see on the news about the truthful human toll of wars. American ChickenHawks rush to support these wars of misadventure, because they seem so bloddless, so clean, so precise, and so victimless. If one network starting do some 'real' reporting on the victims on both sides of war, it would really shake people's support for unjust(aka preemptive) war. Once one news outlet starting showing real pictures, viewers would flock to see them instead of the vanilla/military press release based coverage elsewhere. People would have to be prepared to deal with the truth of war on their consciousses. If the current disconnect were reconnected the anti-war position wouldn't seem so fanciful. I think such a goal would not only be possible, but also attainable. Violence sells, and the current state of heavily-filtered censored news is a delicate prisoner's dilemna waiting to be undone. Except when this prisoner's dilemna comes crashing down, the winner is humanity.
I think that's a great frame for providing an alternative.
"2.0" has a lot of resonance with the population. In software, 2.0 is always better than 1.0. It also implies that our terror policy does everything the republican war on terror does, but better. All of these ideas are already planted in people's heads before they even hear the first word of our policy. Great thinking. I think I'll use it, if I ever post about the War on Terror.
You need a message, and I think the "Iranian ally" argument is the most persuasive one.
Is it true?
I think it may not be true today, but they are natural allies. It's like Europe and the U.S. The realism of geopolitics will trump any subtle differences between Iraqi Shias and Iranian Shias.
Did a hard-line policy toward Hussien, starting with Bush I after Kuwait accomplish anything meaningful? I don't think so. Has our military first strategy in the Middle East accomplished anything? We have Osama Bin Laden now and an aggressively anti-US government in Iran.
The legitimate security concern for Iran is the United States. Iraq knows this, and Iran will not threaten Iraq, lest the United States have a reason to build up tensions.
I agree with you that demonizes Iran and Iraq does nothing good for the country. However, we are caught in a bind. If we publicly take a soft-line to Iran then we will lose every election for being weak.
I was Frost fan for DNC, but I saw him the other day on fox news, and he's really good. He comes across strong and articulate. He's not Alan Colmes at all. I fear he may be too good, and fox news will can him for actually representing Democrats well.
Withdrawal from Iraq needs a timetable. I agree with your belief, that America will grow weary of post-election occupation very quickly. The pro-war public believes we "won" in Iraq the day there were elections.
Therefore, I think that saying "Iraq is no closer to becoming a stable democracy than it was two years ago" and that it is a "losing effort" is a wrong-headed approach. We need to set a publicized date, when we think troops be out of Iraq. Let's say by Thanksgiving no U.S. troops should be assisting in front line operations. By the Thanksgiving after that, no U.S. personnel should be assisting in anyway.
Set our deadline, the "if we had power we would do this" opposition statement up now. That way, when the public turns against continuing occupation, the Democratic party will catch the windfall.
In hindsight, our election line should have been... The Iraqi people have succeeded in spite of the Bush administration. By building up the success, we both look like patriots, but it also creates perception in the public that we can go home now. We should be screaming "mission accompished" at the top of our lungs.
It's a short-term vs. long-term thing. We're at the crossroads right now. If I was running a candidate tomorrow, I'd get a physically attractive, nice guy that makes everybody feel good on the inside. If we had another presidential campaign starting now, I'd run John Edwards. I guess I'm changing my mind a bit on Edwards. He's not my favorite guy at all, and I didn't have a "political crush" on him like a lot of folks around here. In this precise moment, the middle is all that matters. Said moment will not last forever.
Chris, I think you draw the wrong conclsuion. The middle isn't dead at all. The middle has shrank. If a centrist ran in first-choice only, run-off election, s/he would lose instantly with very little of the vote. The margin in elections has shrunk with the middle (corellation, but not causation). When the margin of victory is 3%, and even less if you assume equal non-battleground GOTV, the middle is still deciding national elections.
The middle has changed though and has not only shrunk. I think it has gotten stupider and less informed. The echo chambers on both the left and the right polarize the political cognizant middle of yester-year. What's left is the voters who are uninterested but go vote anyway. They vote with likeability being the most important factor. I think '08 is going to be another streetfight. Whoever does the best hatchet job on their opponent will win. Incumbency is much bigger now than it used to be.'
But what about the future?
If we grow liberalism, we win. We don't just win election with centrist Clintons. If we can get 8 more points of the electorate ideologically on our side, we can run whoever the fuck we want. As the middle shrinks, the stakes go up. Moderation is dead. If Republican can get 8 points of the country on their side, they will run whoever they want and win. Right now the stakes are high, and we're flipping coins. We won't be flipping a fair coin forever, if the middle stays like it is.