Is it me, or does the except you've got there sound like it could just as well apply to Rove?

Which may not be a bad thing for our side, BTW.

As you've said many times Kevin, liberals achieved huge parts of their goals and settled down to technocracy because there was nothing left to do. Just what is ideology supposed to accomplish? The Republicans have lots of that, but they don't let things like reality get in their way of destroying the poor, the coloreds and the ability of government by the people.

You want an ideology? How about "reducing risk so that everyone has an equal opportunity to chase their destiny."

I remember Kos bragging about how he never reads actually books, and his taking the time to read Lakoff's slim "Don't Think of an Elephant" was an unusual departure for him.

Do Democrats really want a guy who doesn't read books calling the shots for the liberal wing of the party?

"we should be happy to leave the serious thinking to the think tanks."

You silly, silly man.

I don’t think ideology is at an all time low, I just think the ideology that is currently dominant is so cynical, it’s hard to believe it’s an ideology . . .

How to best describe it? Maybe: "It's our due." or "Stick to principle." I think those quotes are handy . . .

It's not so much that Kos himself is a draw, but that his website has a kick-ass design. I remember the day when it went Scoop, and things have never been the same there since. Others, like Digby over on Hullabaloo are far better writers, but their site sucks from a design standpoint.

Do Democrats really want a guy who doesn't read books calling the shots for the liberal wing of the party?

Why not?

I think any comparison to Karl Rove are wide off the mark, as Kos has not been known to use thuggery, lies, and deceit that are the hallmark of the current Presidential advisor.

"A lie can travel half-way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes"
---Mark Twain

Nah, no need to defend that one.

Now the statement that liberals treat terrorism like a game - now THAT one you might wanna defend.

To a large extent, I think Kos is symbolic of nearly the entire political blogosphere, which tends to be far more a partisan wrecking crew than a genuine force for either progressive or conservative thought.

True. Last night on Eschaton I had the temerity to say the transit workers strike was a terrible thing and I didn't agree with it. I said it was illegal and they didn't have the right to strike. Atrios, personally, instantly accused me of being a "Republican who supported slavery." I was also called a "cock sucker" and asshole. Really wonderful stuff.

It shit that like that makes me want to quit the party and register as an independent. Who the hell are these "progressive" bullies in the Democratic party?

This strikes me as another false dichotomy: ideology vs tactics.

There is ideology inherent in the desire to win because at heart there is still the question "win what"? What constitutes a victory? Unless you are saying that the blogosphere is strictly oppositional, ideology sneaks in. You maybe be decrying unexamined ideology, implicit ideology.

If winning were the only point, Kos would have joined the other side, where winning is easier to accomplish. Why does someone align with a minority that has less chance of winning if winning is the goal? For the challenge of it? I doubt it.

Mrs. Kos does the reading...from what we can grok, it's sort of an Oprah reading list...

Don't rule out the persuasive power of death bed contrition...lee atwater

Markos doesn't read books, he writes them:

https://www.workingforchange.com/Order/index.cfm?OrderFormID=4&mktcode=crashingthegate

"Crashing the Gate. Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics"

I find dailykos a bit strident at times, but it's a great place to rant and vent.

I think it's the nature of the times. If we survive these times (which sometimes seems unlikely), then the blogosphere is as likely as any other medium to begin developing political and social philosophy.

It isn't exactly news that Kos isn't interested in policy, ideas, anything with any intellectual content whatsoever. If he did care about those things, he might write something interesting or thoughtful at least once in a while. My God, I remember his blog around the election -- nothing but poll stats after poll stats -- mind-numbingly boring stuff, but it all makes sense coming from someone who cares for nothing but "winning."

symbolic of nearly the entire political blogosphere, which tends to be far more a partisan wrecking crew than a genuine force for either progressive or conservative thought.

Sure, if you ignore the way RNC talking points get cycled from RNC headquarters, through the conservative blogs, onward to the conservative talking heads, and then outward into the media to become accepted wisdom. I'd say the InstaNitwit is a substantial force for conservative thought--he helps force that thought into the mainstream media.

If what you really mean is a force for stimulating discussion or debate, one need only look at how, say, NRO can go from warning about the dire consequences of government intrusion embodied in a proposed FCC telephone tax (last week) to proudly proclaiming that Bush has every right to conduct unauthorized and illegal wiretapping on every American (this week). Debate or discussion is not possible with these people, given their astonishing inability to reason.

I don't believe that Kos is as non-ideological as he is portrayed. My take is that he is a realist; he knows we are fighting a ruthless and cunning enemy, and his approach is to use the best tactics at his disposal to simply win some elections, rather than getting caught up in ideological rhetoric. Once we reclaim the Congress, we can rattle on about ideology until we're blue in the face.

Kevin, the quotation that you use continues as follows:

"By his own admission, he just doesn't care about policy. It's here that the correlation between sports and politics breaks down. In sports, as Vince Lombardi is said to have put it, 'Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.' When the season is over, you hang up your cleats and wait for the next season. But in politics, that's not the case—you have to govern, and if you don't govern well, you won't get reelected. So while tactics and message are crucial, most voters will ultimately demand from politicians ideas that give them a sense of what a party is going to do once in power."

Note that Benjamin does not write that a party needs GOOD policies, or SOUND ideas. He states (accurately) that the party's policies only must "give (voters) a sense of what the party is going to do once in power." That's just another way to say "message" and "tactics." The Bush Administration is living proof that message and tactics trump substance.

In today's America, message IS substance. There is no disconnect and there is no conflict between them, even if we wish there was one.

I have to take issue with the statement that the entire political blogosphere is a partisan wrecking crew.

Kos definitely is a tactician, which the Democrats are in desperate need of having. Atrios is more so as well. But there are plenty of theoreticians in the liberal blogosphere, such as Digby or Billmon or Matt Yglesias. I'm sure there are many more I could mention if I thought longer on the subject.

The "wrecking crew" tends to be the group that gets all of the attention due to the fact that they make the noise and engage on the front lines of the political warfare.

(Note: most right-wing blogs are little more than talking point reflectors, so I don't include them in my comments.)

To a large extent, I think Kos is symbolic of nearly the entire political blogosphere, which tends to be far more a partisan wrecking crew than a genuine force for either progressive or conservative thought.

Sadly, most Americans still get their "news" and "information" from the television and local newspaper. As we really smart people know, those are probably the two sources least likely to "get it right." With the demise of the WaPo and NYT over the last decade, you can't even count on the "national" newspapers to "get it right." Sadly, today you're just as likely to get a scoop or good reporting from the USA Today as you are the WaPo or NYT.

Most Americans do not read blogs. Most Americans don't even know what a blog is. For better or worse, there are no "gatekeepers" for Internet "news sources" and blogs. Most blogs are partisan crap or just not worth the bandwidth they occupy. So, I think it's a a stretch calling Kos and others "wrecking crews." Most Americans don't care about politics or even government to begin with - often can't tell you who their representatives in Congress are. They're even less likely to know who Kos or Goldberg or Atrios or Assrocket are. With few exceptions, blogging is most intramural mental masturbation with next to know implication for national or local politics. To date, blogs have had little success in pushing issues ignored by the MSM.

I also agree that Kos comes across as "win at all cost." That's readily apparent in the fixation with polls and even races for governors, an elected position that usually has few national implications.

My take is that he is a realist; he knows we are fighting a ruthless and cunning enemy, and his approach is to use the best tactics at his disposal to simply win some elections, rather than getting caught up in ideological rhetoric.

Since when is posting polls culled from the internet on his blog "tactics"? He's not really doing anything special aside from getting a whole bunch of pissed off liberals together to take swipes at the DLC and other perceived enemies. I guess you could make the case that he's raising money but where are the victories that DKos can truly claim credit for?

It seems like they jump on the bandwagon and claim credit for taking the govenorships in Montana and Virginia. But they didn't really do much groundwork because most of his readers live in blue regions like LA, SF, NY and Chicago.

Isn't DKos something like 0 for 15 on the candidates they support?

I'm not convinced Kos is as much of a force as he claims to be.

Another thought about Kos--

Whatever one thinks of his blog, he has set a remarkable example. Markos has shown that a young guy can sit in his apartment in Berkeley with a laptop and make a real difference in this world. He gets upward of 500,000 hits a day, he has legions of smart diarists posting their own thoughts, and he can raise money. He has created a powerhouse model for bottoms-up democracy, and I hope it is scaring the shit out of the GOP and the DLC.

Kos definitely is a tactician, which the Democrats are in desperate need of having.

No, the last thing the Democrats need is more people worrying about tactics and polls.

Every American knows the Republicans stand for three things: lower taxes, strong military and "family values."

The Democrats don't have a platform or stand for anything except "get elected." Kos is contributing to that.

Nancy -

Just because two things are not completely 100% come-hell-or-high-water independent doesn't mean that there's a "false dichotomy".

Even better: is the distinction between cordate and renate a "false dichotomy"?

I WOULDN'T TAKE THAT LYING DOWN KEVIN, YOU CARE ALOT LESS ABOUT POLICY THEN KOS DOES.

I say we all e-mail these foold and let them know Kevin is even LESS policy oriented and knows pretty much nothing compared to Kos.

Ohh by the way Kevin, have you bothered to look up the Aldrich Ames story on Clintons' warrantless earches of even his house, based all on the President national security powers.....Ahh, not interested huh, I didn't think so...more Koolaid???

I think Kevin is right. For all the huffing and puffing the right does about small government, they actually love it (as do the American people). Sure, some of them have made some attempts at cutting SS, but they expanded Medicare in a huge way. For them it is just about what TYPE of government they want (a corrupt one it seems to me). The size just does not matter outside of a few Grover Norquist/Steve Moore types. The only ideological fight recently has been Iraq and even then you have a lot of liberal hawks who supported the war.

On the left, where socialism was once a social dream of the left often discussed over a glass of champagne, there has been a real acceptance of capitalism. Mike Harrington's treatise on a resurgent socialism is just plain dead, even within most of the left. Yes, universal health care is still a major goal, but it will be the panic ridden right (in the form of big business) that will eventually push that through.

So now we scream at each other about things so trivial, it boggles the mind to think about it; the culture wars. The so-called war on Christmas, the Terry Schiavvo affair, etc. The ONLY real piece to this is the debate on abortion.

I guess there are some real things to discuss from an idealogical point of view, but in a real way, the left and right are actually in close agreement (or at least tolerating) the situation we currently have (much of which was made in liberal land).

Every American knows the Republicans stand for three things: lower taxes, strong military and "family values."

How do Americans know this holy trinity of political talking points? It must be brought to the public some way. How?

Ideology is different from policy. I'll suggest that it most often takes non-ideological thinking to make good policy, and that ideological policy will have a good outcome only by chance.

The non-ideological portion of the blogosphere has been the first exposure I've ever had to policy discussions that go beyond sound bites and NPR handwringing.

Just look at the recent bashing of Bush over the war on Terror. Most of it details how Bush's policies have been effective political weapons, but ineffective, and even counterproductive weapons against terrorists. Even the ideological "Liberty or death" uproar over the latest constitutional crisis has at it's roots the very practical, learned the hard way policy of limited executive power.

Crowd Goes Wild,

Your dismissive attitude towards Kos reveals that you haven't spent enought time on that site. There is a tremendous amount of useful information and nuts-and-bolts material that is helpful to anyone interested in electoral politics. While you are pissing and moaning, Kos is laying the foundation for a progressive revolution.

The lack of ideology is appropriate for a true conservativism. We don't have any plans for a grand utopia; we just want to stop Republicans from ruining the country.

When one party wants to set the house on fire in order to deal with a rodent problem, the other party is allowed to oppose arson without coming up with alternative methods to deal with the rats.

its enough to oppose Republicans.

"I'm honestly not sure what I think of that. Maybe it's just the nature of the medium, and we should be happy to leave the serious thinking to the think tanks. At the same time, I have a feeling that it's also a reflection of something that's been obscured by the ever shriller noise machines on both sides: the death of ideology."

Well, there is one ideological idea behind Markos': that the Democratic party should be more than an ad-hoc coalition of single-issue groups, and that progressives reliance on single-issue groups to advance their agenda is a dead end. Maybe that's not an ideology so much as identifying the lack and need for an ideology.

But if you draw an analogy with the UK Labour Party, there wasn't different between New Labour and Old Labour save for message discipline and committment to stay unified to defeat the Tories.

I noticed Markos' name on the Monthly cover when I found it in my mailbox last night. I've had a few thoughts about it.

1) I agree with David W. that Scoop has a lot to do with Kos' success. I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if a mid-major blog, a Digby or a Political Animal or a Firedoglake, went the same way.

2) I find myself reading DailyKos a lot less than I did a year ago, mostly because of the lack of insight and analysis.

3) I think Wallace-Wells left out the one major ideological point that applies to most of the lefty blogsphere, Kos included: the willingness to accept Dems who are more conservative on social and cultural issues such as abortion and gun control, contrasted with a deep disgust for Dems who are more 'conservative' on what are basically corporate-whoring issues such as bankruptcy 'reform', class action 'reform', and free-trade pacts which seem to benefit the rich while costing the jobs of average Americans.

It may not be the most significant point in the world, but it IS ideological, and it is important. And it's what fuels Kos' dislike of the DLC, because much of that stuff seems to emanate from that shop. Plus they seem to be a source of a lot of Dem-bashing, particularly on Iraq and national security isses - and I'm not talking about honest debate and disagreement, which is good, but simply crapping all over those they don't feel are 'strong' enough.

4) I think Wallace-Wells made good use of drawing an analogy to Bill James. I think he could have taken it further: James, and Krugman, and many bloggers, feel that they see more precisely because they're not spending their time talking with the players, managers, coaches, GMs, and other baseball insiders (in James' case), or the pols, consultants, Congressional staffers, pundits, and other Beltway insiders (in Krugman's and bloggers' cases).

And this comes back to point #3: from out here, you can see that supporting Bankruptcy Deform isn't going to gain you any votes on the right to compensate for the votes it loses you on the left, and that a Democratic Party that's home to people who support bills like this blurs the brand.

Because if there's one thing you need a Democratic Party for, it's to keep the big guys from screwing the little guys. And it doesn't take too many Bidens, Liebermans, etc. to give the GOP 'bipartisan' cover to their corporate-whoring. And then you don't have a brand, because enough Dems are looking no better than the Republicans on pocketbook issues.

While you are pissing and moaning, Kos is laying the foundation for a progressive revolution.

Sounds great but I've been hearing that bullshit on the blogs for five years. Where is it?

Tactic? DailyKos?

What tactics? Markos hardly posts and when he does it is something borrowed from Think Progress or some other blog.

If it wasn't for others composing great diaries for free while Kos get paid for it there would be no reason to visit DKos.

It shit that like that makes me want to quit the party and register as an independent. Who the hell are these "progressive" bullies in the Democratic party?

Well, using the argument that the strike is illegal is somewhat weak. The Taylor Law is actually pretty atrocious; what are public employee unions supposed to use for leverage, harsh language? I do wish that Atrios commenters had addressed your points rather than stooping to ad hominem abusive attacks (at least at first :-)), but there's also a strong cadre of, yes, progressives who are tired of both parties deciding to be anti-labor. So look into the details of the strike, the last-minute demands for tripled pension contributions and the like. If you still say, "So what? It's illegal, and it inconveniences others," then you should go ahead and switch to independent, or Republican. But I suspect that both you and the Atrios folks were just giving your "kneejerk" reactions to the issue.

Now, Kos definitely has some issues with not thinking through certain issues, too. This has come out on choice, and on the promotion of "Fighting Dems" at all costs, even if their platform isn't particularly in keeping with the Democratic Party. Does this perceived pragmatism, or alternatively, willingness to jettison principles, increase or decrease his effectiveness? Note that the perception is important. The Republican Party, the party of fiscal responsibility and distrust for federal powers, has become the opposite, while successfully pretending that it hasn't. I'm not saying that Kos is actually a "sellout," just that on issues such as choice he can be painted as one.

Bill in Portland Maine is my favorite, anyway, since Meteor Blades left.

And whether you love Kos or hate Kos, the author of an article about Kos that didn't verify the facts with Kos is just an idiot - or a republican.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/22/16121/850

Kevin, note your post below about terrorism, the EPA, and chemical sites. I think that is an example of ideology being alive and well and entrenched into the partisan politics of the Republican Party.

I well remember the 1970s when the EPA was formed. A large segment of the business community was dead set against it. The problems were so obvious, and he problems so obviously crossed municipal and state lines (polluted rivers, oceans, and air don’t care about such boundaries) that even Richard Nixon could see that there was a strong role for the federal government to play.

However, a large segment of the business world resisted ANY kind of regulation, anytime, anywhere. This became an ideological position, a belief, if you will. That belief is so entrenched into the conservative wing of the Republican Party that it is not even questioned. EPA = BAD. Government regulation = BAD.

They are so ideological about it that it interferes with rational thought, even when terrorism is involved. If for some reason the military could do the monitoring, then it would be more acceptable to them. The military is about the only part of government the right-wing ideologues accept.

Kos serves a valuable purpose. If all liberal bloggers were like Kos we'd have a problem, but it's important to look at individual bloggers as part of a balanced blog diet, as it were. And on that front we're doing pretty well: just among the top liberal bloggers we've got a big-time strategist (Kos), a big-time thinker (Drum), a Glenn Reynolds-style roundup guy (Atrios), a crusader (Avarosis), and one ring to rule them all (Marshall). To me that looks like a pretty decent recipe for a movement.

To criticize Kos for not being particularly interested in policy is like criticizing the lungs for not being interested in pumping blood.

That piece is a senseless hit on Kos. The author seems to expect Kos to be everything to everyone. What a croc.

BTW, the clock on this server is off by a noticeable amount...

there you go again Kevin with your 'there is no real, meaningful difference between the parties' meme. It is one of the most F'ed-up and consistently so, things you do. Is it possible that you are really that blind or is it just laziness? Can you really be so willfully delusional to think that the massively pervasive undermining of American principles and what the US stood for would have occurred had not the republicans obtained power? Can you not understand that the seeming lurch to plutocracy/creeping fascism under the bushcriminal regime is the logical outcome of the tactics and objectives of the Reagan era. Perhaps you are a little too close to the trees to see the forest.

Kos is all about winning?!

Look at his record, he's the 1962 Mets, or 2005 Temple University Football, of the blogosphere.

I'm sure Republicans love having winners like that calling the shots on the other side.

Kos? Screw im.

> than a genuine force for either progressive or
> conservative thought.

Can you give me some examples where thought, either progressive or conservative, has accomplished or even been involved in anything since the death of HilliaryCare? Which was - what - 1992? And please: some examples of thought in action since November 2000.

The Radicals are ruled by Rove and Norquist, whose goals are domination and nilhism. Having good tacticians on your side in a fight like that, as opposed to deep thinkers, might be a good thing no?

Cranky

What Kos has done is remarkable. He has created an open source marketplace for comments, plans, and ideas. I don't particularly care what his own ideology is because what he has done has set up a place where I can comment on issues that others raise adn raise issues myself that others cna comment on, if they wish.

One remarkable example is the mass collaboration on an energy policy that Jerome a Paris and Meteor Blades and others have been working on. Another is Alpha Geek's great disaster planning series.

Kos may care about politics more than policy but he has made it possible for thousands of us to meet and talk together. That's the real point.

Kos may care about politics more than policy but he has made it possible for thousands of us to meet and talk together.

Where's the beef?

Markos may run DailyKos, and he posts on it, but so do a lot of people... people who do think about the core issues at stake. You may or may not agree that it's great progressive thought, but it is progressive thought, and the DailyKos site is providing a forum for them. Just a couple examples... there are many more where these came from.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/2/19118/2431

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/29/123721/08

Even kos himself gets into the act.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/13/124929/317

"Partisan"? How many partisan sites can you think of with such a wide range of opinions? There are Republicans there as well as Green Party members. There are annoying people, and there are smart thoughtful people. It's chaotic, and I love reading the stuff there.

The problem with Kos being just a tactician -- and that's largely an accurate description -- is that purely tactical politics, that is, seeking powerful for a particular group over others, is inherently ideologically conservative.

You can't be a useful liberal tactician (or, more importantly, strategist, which we desperately need) without also having a deep concern and enthusiasm for liberal ideology, because liberalism isn't about one group gaining power over others, indeed, its directly opposed to it. Liberalism is about, largely, spreading power, where tactical politics is inherently -- no matter which faction it is for -- about concentrating it in a faction.

Kos is a Democratic partisan tactician, and a very competent one.

That being said, his site has great utility for those interested in progressive ideology, since he isn't the only person that writes there, and there are quite a few interesting, and more ideologically engaged, diarists and commentors there.

Kos isn't the ideal leader of the movement -- but he's not the leader of the progressive movement. There is a danger from partisan tacticians without ideological sophistication being too influential in the party (one which is, in fact, already very much visible -- and exacerbated by the fact that they are often clumsy tacticians -- in practice, and Kos has little to do with it), but the solution to that is for more of the ideological voices to speak up and get involved in the debate.

I don't know why some think that it is such a big problem that Kos is just a tactician, even if that is indeed the case.

It's like saying that Neil Armstrong was just an astronaut on the Apollo mission.

A party needs all sorts of people: ideologs, tacticians, strategists, water carriers, and yes even friendly critics and disdainers like Kevin. Only a superhuman can be all of those in one package.

But though he can match Michael Moore for shrillness ...

Michael Moore is not "shrill".

Why do the "sensible liberals" at Washington Monthly consistently embrace right-wing Republican characterizations, charicatures, frames and talking points?

Such as the notion that anyone who outspokenly criticizes Bush or dares to tell the hideous truth about the Bush administration is "shrill"?

Every American knows the Republicans stand for three things: lower taxes, strong military and "family values."

You may have noticed that everyone "knows" these things despite the fact that the Republicans have shifted the tax burden away from the super-rich to the middle and lower classes, they have repeatedly voted against health and disability benefits for our fighting men and women, and you needed to put "quotation marks" around family values because you couldn't bring yourself to type it otherwise in the face of a budget that just slashed family-friendly programs like student loans, school lunches, and Medicaid.

People "know" those things about the GOP because of MESSAGE and TACTICS. Because of Frank Luntz, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, and others. The underlying policies are nearly meaningless, as has been proven for the last five years.

Kevin, that's an unfair and unreflective post. To say Kos has no interest in policy is to beg the question "why is he running a liberal blog?"

There are many political operatives more interested in winning than in principle, operatives who were born Democrat or Republican and stayed that way, or who changed sides when the grass was greener. But the leading liberal bloggers, Kos included, are not among them.

Atrios is a crusader and a source of news. He wants to win, sure, but he wants to win because he values the triumph of right over wrong. John Aravosis at Americablog is much in the same mold. Digby wants to win as much as anyone, though he's more of an analyst than a Paul Revere type, but once again, he seeks victory for principle. And the list goes on.

Perhaps you have spent too much time with political operatives on both the right and left who are corrupted by partisanship. And perhaps the fact that many of these liberal bloggers are somewhat to the left of you and often more harsh in rhetoric makes it easier for you to jump to the wrong conclusion. But this post did not well not serve either your party or, much more important, the truth.

What a silly article. Daily Kos is an open blog. There are at least fifty new articles on that site every day. Some are about policy, some are about wanker journalists, some about wanker Republicans. So. . . Kevin, where's your new energy bill?

The great thing about the Dailykos is its organization. Lots and lots of smart diaries and a steady flow of front page stories. He has recruited a bunch of folks to post those front page stories. They keep the information fresh. The diaries give the reader access to a lot of small or obscure stories. Often I find myself a day or two ahead of the curve after skimming the diaries.

Many blogs are organized from the top down, newspaper sytle. Why not, most successful bloggers are successful newspaper people. Many are translating the model they know to the internet. Kos has organized his from the middle up and down. For whatever reason every progressive likes to think he or she is a pundit. That separates progressives/liberals from conservatives.

Kos's ideology isn't the reason I have the DailyKos on my list of favorite sites. It is his organization.

BTW, Kos has an "errata" posted over at the dailykos site.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/22/16121/850

Kos and his web site are the epitome of what the Daily Show pegged as the Democratic Party problem in campaign 2004. They gathered 15 different people representing the diversity of the party and came away with 15 different #1 issues. The beauty of the party as encompassing a wide range of view points is its fatal flaw in a one issue (the terrorists! the terrorists! they're here, they're there, they're everywhere!!!)campaign.
The republicans stayed on message (and it is about the message as someone earlier said) and just kept hammering that one point.
What's pathetic about it is that the administration has only the message. It is not a plan nor a policy for actually running anything. Look at the fact that even the logistics in Iraq have been flawed because Rumsfeld insisted on the DoD running the show instead of leaving the military to do its job.

Fuck kos.

Scoop is great but that self-important asshole ex-Republican vomits text, plays crap piano, and only bothers to stop and think after getting slammed by a journalistic 2x4. He and his legions of self-righteous blaring hypertensive worshippers couldn't diplomatically communicate their way out of a wet paper bag. He'll probably write some post correcting the name of his highschool sweetheart in the WaMo article. Like anyone gives a fuck.

Just doing my part to get you that world record comment thread for Chrismas ! : ) How we doing so far?

I'm a dKos addict, but it's not just because I want to hear what Markos has to say. It's a community blog w/ many great writers. Some are more interested in tactics, some in ideology, most a bit of both. That's part of what makes it interesting.

Kevin Drum wrote: "To a large extent, I think Kos is symbolic of nearly the entire political blogosphere, which tends to be far more a partisan wrecking crew than a genuine force for either progressive or conservative thought."

As usual, I'm late to this discussion, and -- in the middle of the work day -- can't take time to read all these comments. But THIS statement actually ticks me off. Generally, I'm usually in fair agreement with Kevin, but this is just SO off base, as least as relates to the liberal side of Blogistan.

I hardly ever read Daily Kos, because it seems to lack substance at times ... and I get tired of wading past so many "open threads." I don't dislike him, and often pick up things he's said. But, obviously, others like him a whole lot more than I do.

But, if analysis and serious thought is what you want (with or without much tactical thinking on the side), you can read Digby at Hullabaloo; Billmon at Whiskey Bar; Publius at Legal Fiction; Michael Berube; frequently Steve Clemons at Washington Note; the brilliant Mark Schmitt at The Decembrist; Brad DeLong weighs in now and again, as well. You can find wonderful analysis about extremist groups from David Neiwert at Orcinus. Matthew Yglesias often provides insightful commentary.

ALL of these bloggers, and a small army of others as well, routinely go far beyond mere concern with tactical issues. Of course, if you are defining "theoreticians" in some unusually academic or refined way -- where a Billmon or Neiwert don't make the cut -- then I suppose you're right. But, then, when I look at many of the "conservative manifestos" written over the past 30-40 years, by alleged "wise men" of the right, what I'm usually impressed with is how profoundly shallow they are. THEY apparently set the bar remarkably low, so that out-and-out racism ("The Bell Curve") and pathetially simplistic arguments about law and society (anything written by Robert Bork in his entire life) are held aloft as examples of the conservative "idea machine." By THAT standard, Kos is a veritable deep-thinker!

But by any normal standard, we on the left do -- in fact -- have a boatload of bloggers working day and night providing a rich bounty of new ideas and new thinking for Democrats and the left generally. Not just tactical advice, but detailed analysis and plenty of new ideas.

Kos is a Democratic partisan tactician, and a very competent one. Posted by: cmdicely

Define "competent" with regards to being a partisan political tactician. He was batting about .153 after the last election.

I sense that liberal "tacticians" either give the general public too much credit for understanding the subtlties of most issues facing voters or they aren't smart enough to dumb the issues down the way the Rethugs do so well to appeal to the heart and not the head, which for most Americans is filled with a sickeningly viscous mixture of, among other things, "reality TV," NASCAR, hip-hop music, "Christianity," saw dust, and Big Macs.

He has created a powerhouse model for bottoms-up democracy, and I hope it is scaring the shit out of the GOP and the DLC.

What I think and hope.

cdj: Kevin set the two in opposition, not me. I am saying ideologist/tactician can be coextensive. I think we are agreeing.

This is what has troubled me about Kos, and kept me at arm's length from the Deaniac-dominated netroots. Yes there are diaries about policy and substance (as opposed to just partisan political pornography) at kos every day, but the ethos of the place is more about winning (which is in part why it is the most dynamic community blog for Democrats). As someone who does care about policy, and the proverbial great society, I worry about what happens when the people this crowd supports actually get into office. One shouldn't underestimate the importance of small donations to our political culture (which is chiefly a Deaniac innovation), and their targeting of the Washington elite is pitch perfect, but there was a disturbing willingness on the part of Kos and Armando to countenance the bankruptcy bill (for instance), which leads you to wonder what else the leadership (and they are a kind of leadership, despite their protestations) will countenance. There are some hopeful signs that what began in partisan wrath could become a revolutionary movement grounded in distinctly American ideals (a kind of left-libertarian, Jeffersonian-Paine hybrid), with an abiding concern for basic republican values - liberty, humanity, and constitutionality - but that will mean turning the sword on even self-described liberal Democrats in Congress who don't live up to those values.

There's no such thing as ideology. It's merely another form of advertising, now, and rarely connects with the policy realities of the side it supports. The blogsphere took off because people who think for a living were sick of the pap served up as "news." As time went on we realized just how vast the advertising machinery was, saw the bill for what they were trying to sell us, and said "no fucking way."

The wrecking crew response you note is our reaction to having to wade through obvious bullshit and its sad, sad dupes every day, knowing that they're overwhelming us with the sheer number of repetitions, outlets, and idiots. The content is meaningless, the talking heads have been bought, the looting is almost over, and the costs are staggering so yeah: wrecking is the only rational response to a pile of rubble.
.

This is pitiful kossites. Drum called your bitch out.

What part of "Kos is all about tactics", "we should be happy to leave the serious thinking to the think tanks", and "Kos looks french" didn't you understand?

Kos, to my way of thinking, understands that most Americans agree with the Democrats on the big issues, and yet they still vote for Republicans because of the GOP's tactics, their marketing, their demonizing of the opposition, etc.

What I get from Kos is that the Democrats are playing by the Marquess of Queesbury rules in a knife fight. So all the policy discussions in the world are simply acedemic if you don't use the tactics needed to win elections . . .

Back when my beard wasn't grey, I thought that ideology had a lot to do with success.

We always thought that "doing the right thing will get us to the top." We were right (or left) and the other guys were wrong.

As a dyed in the wool liberal Democrat, it was rather insightful to have the opportunity to study with a true master at the tactical pol - Lee Atwater. As a undergraduate at the University of South Carolina in the mid-70s, Lee was a graduate assistant, while also working to define Bush I as a candidate for president. He lost to Reagan, but was absorbed into Reagan's WH.

Lee and I became friends. In addition to national stuff he was doing with Bush I, he was also dabbling in local and state stuff, as was I.

We had a running bet - fifth of Scotch to the victor. Each of us bought our share of Scotch.

Lee had a very basic tenet - tactics will beat ideology any day of the week.

Having been a child of the 60s and 70s, we all had to go from the idealism that we could overcome, we could make world peace, simply by wishing it to be so.

Kos is alot like Lee was. Let others worry about the ideology, while I design the strategy, the tactics to take over.

There is a great line in the movie "Power" starring Richard Gere that came out in the 80s. The candidate asked a very basic question: "What about the ideas that got me here, such as tax cuts, feeding the poor, educating the ignorant...?"

Gere, the tactician, responded very succinctly, and accurately: "After you get in office, I don't give a flying fuck what you do. But first, I have to get you there. So shut up and do what I say."

You've got to get there in order to accomplish the ideological stuff that you envision. If you're sitting on the sidelines, you're only talking good, not doing anything about it.

"we should be happy to leave the serious thinking to the think tanks."

All thinking that goes on in think tanks is useless gaming. In the real political world the crescendo of a thousand pressure groups pushing like hell for their own selfish thing somehow gets whittled down into a manageable plop which finally gets excreted onto the public. Democracy in action, folks. It's always been terribly messy and always will be. A good tactician is worth ten thinkers like me.

To a large extent, I think Kos is symbolic of nearly the entire political blogosphere, which tends to be far more a partisan wrecking crew than a genuine force for either progressive or conservative thought.

It's like our court system. There is always a counsel for hte prosecution, and one for the defense too.

I basically look at current discourse as one long, unending, corrosive OJ trial. While many, many issues are shades of grey and can be argued from both sides, there are plenty of issues that are open and shut cases and yet there are people arguing both sides with the full vehemence of the righteous. When a repub defends the indefensible, it calls into question everything else. Ditto for the dems.

"Liberals will be back in power some day."

No. They won't. Not if Bush and Rove and DeLay have their way. And don't count them out. They are not done by a long shot. If the Democrats do not win big and soon, they will cement a permanent majority, kept in power by a combination of gerrymandering, church-state alliances, control of the press, unlimited big-business money flowing into political campaigns, and straight-up corruption. All the honest prosecutors in the country will not be able to stop them. We have to win an election.

We are the point that, unless the Democrats take back at least one house or the presidency soon, democracy in the US is over. Kos understands this. Kevin doesn't.

Oh for god's sake, is this anything but a bit of pathetic special pleading by Kevin, and demand to have his relevance recognized at the expense of dailykos as an active community. Ideology/thoughtfulness/ideas aren't something that some people "get" to do or parties "need to do". Political parties need to win in order to have space to implment ideas. Voters have ideas that they wish to see implemented. Kos and dailykos are working on bringing voters, activists, and ideas people together not separating them out. They are looking at creating novel ways to bring influence to bear on those in power. What is the problem here? Since kos will never "call the shots" in a democratic party this whole discussion strikes me as absolutely mindbogglingly stupid.

aimai/a dailkos member interested in winning politically to implement big liberal ideas.

liberals will be back in power someday

Well, as someone who never thought he would say this, I hope so.

Every now and then, the blog pushback pays off. [listen to her drone on - see how long it takes to NOT be a idiot?]

And every now and then, the presstitutes push back on the push back, and wind up looking like the idiots they are.

And so it goes.
.

I don't read DailyKos because of the childish, sexist nature of much of the commentary. If I wanted to wade in a sewer there are plenty of them online.

The idea that has been presented there frequently is that we have to sell our ideals to win. Choice, gay rights, environmental concerns are all secondary to getting a Democrat, any Democrat, into office. What is the point of winning if we abandon everything we believe to get there?

It isn't ideology versus marketing; that's a false dichotomy. If Democrats can't understand that the politics of demagogy and opportunism (one is practiced more by one party, and vice versa), the beholdenness of our political elites to corporate and public employee union special interests, and the apparatus of the American Empire (with or without the imprimatur of the UN and EU) are jeapordizing constitutional governance, the rule of law, and in some fundamental sense the very existence of this republic there is little hope not only for the party, but for the country.

Unless the New New Democrats ground themselves in this understanding, and basic American values - liberty, humanity, constitutionality, federalism and republicanism (as I suggested above a blend of Jefferson and Paine) - the only purpose of the Democratic netroots is some combination of a political parlor game, and a Machiavellian power grab. "Ideology" (which is often just shorthand for 1970s-era liberalism) died with the 1970s. And the Marketing Industrial Complex of the 1990s Democrats must also be burned to the ground for the good of the party, and country.

I don't visit there often because the poll-centric content and comments generally bore me, but the best idea I've seen from Daily Kos is getting early money to marginal candidates where even one win in the list would be a major upset.

I'd like to see the list's focus to be more on state candidates, but money raising on blogs at the federal level seems to be about the only viable approach at this time.

What is the point of winning if we abandon everything we believe to get there?

Have you ever won anything?

What's the point of having sex if you have to lose your virginity to have fun?

I think Roger Keeling is right that there are a number of bloggers who represent an "intellectual" strain in the blogosophere.

But this doesn't really get at the nerve of the problem, I think, because the true center of gravity in the blogosphere is and must be measured in terms of popularity and money.

THAT is why Kos, and DailyKos, are so important: he has, I gather, by a good distance, the greatest number of readers, and the most effective apparatus to campaign to raise money for candidates.

Now, please forgive me for sounding off here, but this has been on my mind.

I personally find it usually depressing to read DailyKos, simply because of the amount of hysterical din the place seems to generate. Atrios tends to suffer from the same problem. I have to admit, there are days when I say to myself, My God, if these are liberals, can I be something else?

I suspect even Kos is sometimes, maybe often, embarrassed by his diarists and commenters, because I understand he's more or less shut down some of the crazier conspiracy theorizing.

My view has always been that the true and best friend of progressivism is truth itself. How do I square that attitude with the nutcases on DailyKos pushing still another loopy idea, in my eyes only more bizzarro than, say, Creationism?

And it is certainly true that what is offensive in DailyKos is not ideological extremism of any kind. You don't find crazy tree-huggers or PC-Nazis or Animal Rights fanatics or you-name-it dominating the discussion -- they are actually pretty rare to find. What you DO find is any number of people who seem willing to believe ANYTHING bad about the Republicans no matter how absurd on its face it may be.

Now, I don't have any particular problem with hatred, least of all against most Republican politicians, who have conducted entire their lives to richly deserve it. But I do have a problem with the kind of stupidity and blindness such hatred seems to induce in a lot of people, and especially in the people who show up in such copious numbers at DailyKos.

Yes, yes, I know the right wing blogosphere is a million times worse. But I don't hang with them, don't plan to hang with them, and am happy to let them be the shitty little people they are. But I want to be friends with Democrats and liberals, and DailyKos is pretty demoralizing for that end.

God knows I have no idea how to deal with this problem. Maybe I simply have to recalibrate my expectations of humanity. But I DO know I don't want to have to read a diary entitled HUGE!! DIEBOLD USED TIME TRAVEL TO STEAL ELECTION IN OHIO UTILIZING CHIPS INSIDE BUSH'S DEBATE "BULGE"!!

On Election Day last fall, I was doing GOTV calls for a county judge candidate (Rensselaer County in upstate NY) up until 8:30.

Knowing that the polls closed earlier in NJ and VA, I insisted that we log on to dKos and see how those races were going, in the hopes that a good Democratic night would be contagious.

There, on the front page, were the NJ and VA results. And our judge candidate won by 14 points in a Republican county.

Kos has argued that the Democrats should be the party of people who work for a living. dKos is a site for Democrats who want to win.

There's plenty of policy stuff there (gmoke's reference to the energy series is especially apt), but the essence of the site is that we need to do everything we can to win back the country from the Worst President Ever and the DeLay/Frist Congress.

If Republicans and loser Democrats don't like that, well, tough.

I stopped reading Kos when he cheered the May compromise that allowed the three wingnuts onto the bench. He not only approved of the Democrats throwing away their opportunity to filibuster obviously bad choices, but failed to see that by surrendering once again, he was encouraging Bush to continue to pack the court. The result: Roberts joined the court practically unopposed, Alito is approved by a two to one margin, and the Democrats have failed to win key battles over the budget, the Patriot Act (another bad compromise) and other important legislative battles.

Kos is popular, but so is losing to Republicans -- they go hand-in-hand.

franklyO,

Very good posting! And very amusing finish!!

Atrios suggests that political wonkery is sort of pointless these days given the modern Republican Party's well documented lack of interest in serious policy.

Yes, by God, if the Republicans deprioritize something, Democrats must too. Its a race to the bottom. Except that, of course, the Republican goal doing what it takes to protect a status quo elite minority and their hold on power, so abandoning everything else for that goal is rational for them.

Our goal is not promote some faction at the expense of all else, so it doesn't serve our goal for us to adopt that as our strategy. Strategy must be guided by the goal it seeks to achieve. Electoral victory for a party is not the right end to be sought (it is an important instrumental means to a policy end.)

Yes, by God, if the Republicans deprioritize something, Democrats must too. Its a race to the bottom. Posted by: cmdicely

No. The race is over. The Republicans won pulling away about 8 years ago.

I wrote a piece on Tacitus recently self-styled as "A Mission Statement for Democrats." In the piece, I posited that a crucial difference between the parties these days is that the Republicans are locked into a small-government ideology(/theology), while Democrats are flexible enough to look for non-ideological solutions:

We don't differentiate ourselves from the other Party by wanting [goals delineated earlier in the piece]. We differentiate ourselves by dedicating ourselves to enlightenment: to light. Enlightened evokes both the Enlightenment, i.e., the birth of an age of knowledge, and spiritual enlightenment, a renewed age of faith. In other words, we act in faith and in touch with the divine, but only with the fullest education and understanding we can bring to bear on problems. We do not demand that God provide answers to us in our ignorance, but search for answers with all the faculties that have been provided to us, believing that God helps those who help themselves. We reject the idea that it was some act of divine deceit that gave us brains that can study and come to understand the manifest evidence of scientific nature. We, therefore, trust nature, logic, and God, but our willingness to find scientific answers to questions means that we place little trust in ideology.

We believe that government can help achieve goals, especially enlightened government. And we believe in the power of human wisdom, as expressed at the ballot box, to shape government into the proper tool of society. Government should be neither too large nor too small; it should not regulate too much nor too little; it should not interfere with our lives nor be unavailable when needed; instead, it should be the right size, regulate the right amount, and be a support for us in our hour of need. With science, computerization, data collection, and an endless thirst for knowledge and willingness to experiment, we can discover what kind of government works best and create it.

I thought of that when I read Kevin's piece, and my first reaction was to think that, since Kevin is writing from the Democratic side of the spectrum, perhaps he thinks that ideology has died because it doesn't live for those he works and communes with most. After all, it's pretty clear that there was little ideology driving the Clinton Presidency other than a dedication to getting it right, and it's just as clear that the Clintonites are firmly at the helm of the modern Democratic Party.

But then I had a second thought that perhaps Kevin was right, or at least he is right if the Bush wing's control of the GOP is as firm as the Clinton wing's control of Democrats. Where's the "small government" philosophy in GWB's free-spending no-child-left-behind, new-Medicare-entitlement, man-on-Mars, rebuild-the-Gulf-Coast, enforce-Democracy-in-the-Middle-East style of running the country?

I guess the only thing for sure is that we're all exaggerating things a little: both sides are at least influenced by ideology even though winning seems to be the primary governing philosophy for each. Maybe both sides are just becoming ever-more-slightly-differentiated centrist populist parties, and maybe that's what mass-media-driven democracy is all about.

Any thoughts?

I stopped reading Kos about the time he started insulting the people who objected to the sexy ads he was accepting for his site.

He seems to have an authoritarian streak in him, and it shows up especially with women's issues.

It turned me right off of Kos.

The posters on his site are grammar Nazis with whom you can't argue about the smallest issue, for fear of being banned as a troll. The site itself swings from the middle of the road to extreme left wing. Not exactly my cup of tea.

Blogs naturally lend themselves to strategy since strategy follows the daily news cycle and its constant movement, whereas policy is more-or-less detached from the moment. Although plenty of bloggers obviously do relate the two subjects, they're distinct.

"Liberals will be back in power one day"? Tell that to Diebold.

I wrote a piece on Tacitus recently self-styled as "A Mission Statement for Democrats." In the piece, I posited that a crucial difference between the parties these days is that the Republicans are locked into a small-government ideology(/theology), while Democrats are flexible enough to look for non-ideological solution

The very idea is incoherent. Problems and solutions exist only in reference to beliefs about what constitutes good or bad -- i.e., ideology -- so a "non-ideological solution" is an oxymoron. Your explanation indulges in the fantasy that what government "works best" is something that can objectively defined and is, again, independent of ideology. What "works best", though, can only be determined in reference to what you believe government should do -- again, ideology.

What "works best", though, can only be determined in reference to what you believe government should do -- again, ideology.

Certainly at some point our dispute here is dependent on definitions. But as I pointed out in the linked piece, I think there are certain social goals such as security and prosperity that are pretty much universally desired. And what I "believe government should do" is whatever is the best thing to achieve those goals, so long as that achievement outweighs destructive side-effects.

I don't believe, and in my opinion most adherents of the Democratic Party don't believe, is that step one should be determining in a theoretical way what government should look like and what kinds of actions government should engage in, and step two should be seeing what a government that looks like and does the right things can do for society. Rather, there's just one step, and that step is fashioning a rational and productive government that helps society as much as it can without endangering civil liberties or losing the legitimacy it gains from the consent of the governed.

Where's the beef?

Stirling Newberry and bondad provide regular, consistent, and thoughtful analysis of economic news and developments. they often post several times in any given week.

Jerome a Paris regularly provides in-depth analysis of alternative energy technologies.

DarkSyde's Science Friday series is also wonderful and informative, though not always politically relevant.

daily kos ain't just about kos. in fact, very little of it is about kos anymore. it's about the diarists and what they contribute.

Good god, if political parties actually started to care about principle, they'd start looking like libertarians! And how nerdy would that be?

ideological purity is reserved for the folks that sit on the bench and bitch about what's happening that doesn't go their way.

tactical strength results in being able to do something with the ideology

Kevin,

I have always thought that you sought on your blog to encourage thoughtful debate not just partisan cheerleading. Don't give up now.

But as I pointed out in the linked piece, I think there are certain social goals such as security and prosperity that are pretty much universally desired.

Not really, though it appears that way through the magic of equivocation if you use broad enough descriptions so that different people will take the terms to mean different things.

And what I "believe government should do" is whatever is the best thing to achieve those goals, so long as that achievement outweighs destructive side-effects.

And what constitutes "destructive side-effects" and whether the good done outweighs those is, again, unanswerable without reference to ideology.

I don't believe, and in my opinion most adherents of the Democratic Party don't believe, is that step one should be determining in a theoretical way what government should look like and what kinds of actions government should engage in, and step two should be seeing what a government that looks like and does the right things can do for society.

Perhaps not. Then again, I don't think even most people who aren't deluded into thinking that they have somehow transcended ideology think that. I think, for instance, that step one should largely be deciding what government should do for society, and step two should be determining what a government that does that looks like.

Rather, there's just one step, and that step is fashioning a rational and productive government that helps society as much as it can without endangering civil liberties or losing the legitimacy it gains from the consent of the governed.

There is a whole lot of ideology packed into that statement, and even more needed to unpack (e.g.) the "helps", "civil liberties", "legitimacy", and "consent of the governed" so that you can actually use it as anything like a practical guide.

How you can think that this is somehow not ideological is beyond me.

Kevin, if you want to be a thinker, please explain your repeated posts using small news articles to paint entire RED states as backwards hicks and rascists....THEN COMPARE THAT TO THE CENSUS DATA SHOWING PEOPLE FROM BLUE STATES ARE FLOCKING TO THE RED STATES.

Apparently there is something they know, that you just don't get.

Given that being a member of the reality based community pretty much means you're a Democrat, and that the Repubs have gone over a cliff of the Bush personality cult--and if this FISA business doens't prove that to you, you're hopeless--I'd say that, for the moment, Democratic partisanship is enough. At this point, I'd vote for Hagel, but given the fact that his statements (which get far less attention that Joe Lieberman's far less coherent pronouncement against his own party--wonder why) tend to be passionate circumlocutions pronouncing the nudity of the Emperor, I somehow don't think I'll ever have to bite that bullet.
This just occured to me: Can Hagel be the new McCain? The liberal's and the MSM's favorite conservative? Probably not, he doesn't seem to have the same sense of humor that seduced the boys on the bus.

Good god, if political parties actually started to care about principle, they'd start looking like libertarians! And how nerdy would that be? Posted by: Shelby

Oh that's a laugh. Libertarians stand for nothing, and certainly couldn't give a shit about their fellow man.

After reading Kos's response, it is reasonable to call Benjie the Wallace-Wells a f**king liar. Thank you very much.

It's a sign of the times. The level of the discourse. Winston Churchill could be here today farting Yankee Doodle Dandy and everyone would keep their nose in their navel.

UPDATE: Kos has a few factual corrections here. They aren't super serious, but perhaps Ben will address them later.

Oh really?

Taken together, they amount to painting Kos as a hypocritical liar who constantly rubs shoulders with DC insiders while posing as an outsider.

"Apparently there is something they know, that you just don't get."

They certainly know what they believe, which is that they hate Mexicans, homos, and "liberal elitists" more than they love economic prosperity and paying their own way in the world. What percentage of the 32 states that receive more in federal dollars than they pay in taxes are red states? Let me help you. It's 76%. Which states have the highest rates of divorce, murder, and teenage pregnancy? Yep, you guessed it, red states. Apparently it is the bad element that is leaving the blue states to be among their own kind.

PS The white working class has been leaving blue states largely for cultural reasons (ie their own racism, nativism, and homophobia), but to the extent that more educated middle class people have been leaving blue states (and it hasn't been to a significant extent) it has little to do with the culture wars, and almost everything to do with the cost of housing. But the failure to build enough new housing stock to meet demand isn't exclusively a liberal problem; NIMBYism crosses political lines in America. Liberal Vancouver BC (among other places) doesn't have a housing crisis because it built a number of new apartment and condominium buildings in the 1990s and 2000s.

The ideology seems to me to be a desire to live in the society as it was described to us when we were children. Where everybody gets a fair shake, racism has been demolished and only lives quitely in the hearts of grumpy old men, we use technology to advance our society over and through obstacles, the future is still on the horizon, we're fighting to never have to fight again, justice prevails in every community, we rehabilitate the wayward, we don't assume to do the work of god, we're proud of our honest representatives, my mother and sister will be respected people, and hard work gets you places. Why isn't this the way things are? Or even more offensive, why would someone want it to be different than that? The twisted nature of America lends itself to believe in these things and in the same breath betray them. The ideology is to rid ourselves of the betrayal of our own values.

If democrats won there would be no Kos.

Kos is a reaction mainly to democrats who would rather stay pure and lose than reframe the debate or even compromise in order to win.

He is a reaction to a party that had a 100 seat majority in the House fifteen years ago and became complacent. A party lured away from its roots by K Street and soft money. A party that believed the key to future sucess was to become more like Paul Tsongas than Paul Wellstone. A party that chose to highlight social issues rather than economic ones in an attempt to grow and win. A party who's last champion famously declared 'the era of big government is over.'

Kos emphasizes winning because he knows losing has serious consequences to those on the edges of American society.

I use to live in a blue state but I moved to a red state so I could marry my half sister.

I often find Kos' writinig to be very immature. His posts are like reading a high school newspaper. Especially during the 2004 democrat primaries, it was like he was a teenager excited about elections. I still remember when it was all over for anyone with half a brain, he made a dramatic endorsement of Edwards. As far as "tactics," what has he done or even what could he do from his blog site. I remember last election he had Kos Dozen (which I think grew to 15) and all 15 candidates lost.

And, of course, his rants against President Bush are often childish.

Overall, he has put together a remarkably successful site, but if you have the patience to read through a set of comments, you will be amazed at the lack of smart/depth of the posters.

Finally, he has to be bad for the democrat party because he is such an easy target for ridicule, yet democrats feel like they cannot offend him. So he becomes to some extent the voice of the democrat party.

Atrios suggests that political wonkery is sort of pointless these days given the modern Republican Party's well documented lack of interest in serious policy.

Early in 2005 the Republicans passed tort reform and bankruptcy reform. I think you will find that by Oct 2006 it will have been well documented that these laws effected overall improvement. There is a lot to be said for policy discussions that result in actual improvements.

Less admirable, but no less serious, were the highway bill and the energy bill. I think you'll find that, by Oct 2006, both bills will be having demonstrable beneficial effects in the economy.

Anybody who believes that those are not "serious" policy, just doesn't credit what works.

Taken together, the 4 bills will do considerable good, and will provide a strong accomplishment for the Republicans to run on in 2006.

If the economy continues to grow at about the rate it has grwon over the last 4 years (and those bills ought to help), the Republicans will take credit, and the Democrats will find it hard to make inroads.

Republican policy on Iraq is also 'serious', and is causing continuing consternation and discord among Democrats. Again assuming that progress (slow, no doubt about that) continues in Iraq, Democrats will have little hope of improving their influence in national politics next election.

Only by relelntlessly ignoring 3/4 of what's happening can the Democrats feel optimistic about their electoral chances next fall. If Democratic spokesfolks make dismissive comments about Republican policy, then I am doubtful the Democrats can catch up.

This "conservatives moving to red states to be among their own kind" idea is asinine. Everybody knows that people move south for mild winters and cheap housing prices. Every conversation I've had with somebody wanting to move "down there" has been centered around the weather, and none has mentioned politics or culture (beyond barbecue).

The real question is... are enough blue staters moving to small-ish red states to start turning them purple?

Papageno, your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Please tell us more how the bankruptcy bill is going to positively affect the lives of everyday Americans.

I now have read the story on Kos and find it even more amazing that he is the object of such respect and admiration among democrats. How could anyone read that feature and say, yeah, that's the guy we should follow.

This deal about winning (which of course he has never done) without interst in policy is very odd. What is the point of winning if you do not have some principles or philosophies to apply?

On the personal side, a self described "asshole" living at age 34 in a three room rental in Berkley? He smiles and says "vindicated" when asked about his shameless "screw em" comment about Americans mutilated in Iraq.

At other poinsts he is described as follows:

"But it's not always possible to discern a clear principle governing the tactics Moulitsas employs, and the fights he takes on. And his dogmatic notions of what Democrats need to do to win can often seem idiosyncratic, prescriptive rules made on the fly."

At another place as follows:

"Moulitsas is touchy, far too self-assured, and easily provoked. But he's more interesting in person than he is on his blog, more thoughtful and funny and even a little bit more capable of self-criticism. . . .

Most other bloggers think that Moulitsas is a fame hound, a loudmouthed nerd at the back of the room pulling ever more absurd stunts to get attention—What if I doctor the photo of Zell Miller, so it has fangs, and blood cascading from its mouth? What if I did it without wearing any pants?"

How could this guy be respected and how could a party possibly look to him for leadership?

Kevin Drum misses the point of KOS.

If KOS is a 'tactician', he is a lousy one.

Example: KOS has used his blog and his internet connections to push for the election of something like 13 or 14 House candidates. All of them, except one or maybe two, lost.

That gives KOS a pretty lousy record as a 'tactician'. Except, KOS's blog and his reputation have grown, even as his power to elect Democrats has been teeny.

Yes, the internets are wild and wooly places full of thrills and dangers and some of them do fall into the blogosphere. One must thrive on adventure or find a safe, staid corner to hide out in.

I have to say that I view Kos/Markos separately from the blog community at Daily Kos. Does he occasionally contribute to the front page? Yes. But the vast majority of content at Daily Kos is in the diaries developed by those who participate in the community there. It is open to any who care to participate which means that the quality of the contributions is all over the spectrum but the rating systems do allow some winnowing of the less worthy. Also, the kos blog community has gone through extraordinary growth and is still experiencing it. If you were familiar with the site a year ago and have not revisited since, particularly in the last 2-4 months, you have no idea what exists there now. I'm sure that rate of change will continue so that 6 months from now will represent a quite different level than what's there today.

I lurk on Political Animal though I think I've only commented once or twice. I think you might find some you would consider your intellectual equals on daily kos. But I think what you would also get is an education in what those who are not 'overly educated' think.

Many who come there are brand new to the idea that they can take hold of their own destinies in the political arena and make a difference. It is sad that those who do have a certain perspective and balance to contribute to the educational process that occurs there, disdain rubbing elbows with those who they conclude are shrill and less well-reasoned and informed.

Neither is Daily Kos a monolithic entity but made up of individuals who are nurses, teachers, professors, economists, software developers, executive recruiters, students, mothers, lawyers, graphics designers, active duty military, project managers, game & wildlife managers, marketing gurus, etc. A highly diverse group and by their own measurement as of 9:13 pm est, 68% are 36 or older, 55% are over 40. (That's with 8633 votes in.) That's a lot of real life living and experience reflected there.

And what's more interesting and I think missed in most of the blogospheric analysis is that many of the bloggers on kos participate in at least one other blog community on a regular basis and are active in real-life groups in their own communities. They are not as divorced from reality or shrill as some journalists and reporters characterize them.

In the end, what's important to remember is that Daily Kos has grown beyond its founder. And I think that he would be the first to admit that. Does the front page give him a platform to do other things? Yes, but you miss 80% of the iceberg if all you do is read kos's entries on the front page.

If you do not have the patience for teaching or to sift out the less worthy entries, then perhaps Daily Kos is not for you but do not dismiss it as beneath you. Rather recognize that you do not wish to invest time there and the lack is yours, not the community's. Know also that you are missing an opportunity to learn something that you will not find in the serious "ivory tower" places... the grit of real life. And regardless if they can speak in multi-syllabic words without swearing or not, these are people that the Democratic Party and its candidates have to reach and win if they intend to win elections in 2006 and 2008. Learning how to communicate with them and winning their cooperation in on-the-ground campaign organizing and GOTV work strikes me as a most effective strategy.

You really ought to get over yourself, Kevin. As a regular reader of both blogs, I can say there's at least as much policy discussion on dKos as there is here. Try reading the regular diaries of Jerome a Paris and Bondad on economics and energy policy or Chris Kulzinski's posts on alternative energy. As for the rest of the political blogosphere, try Brad deLong, Angry Bear and Brad Setzer if you want serious policy wonkery. And when he's in the mood (far too seldom lately), Billmon (be it at Whiskey Bar or as a commentator on Brad deLong's and Brad Setzer's blogs) puts everybody to shame on economics.

I can't believe you don't know this already, so I assume you were just playing dumb to make a point. If there's some other explanation, please accept my apologies in advance.

Whatever happened to actually talking to someone you are profiling? Letting them read what you have written to check facts? Shouldn't Ben have addressed his factual errors before publishing, or is that type of background work passe these days?

Some of the errors are no biggee, but some are just dazzling. He has Kos advising people he has never met and involved in organizations he has nothing to do with.

Is there no one who can do journalism any more?

Kevin, this post implicitly treats "wonkishness" or "policy" as more or less the same thing as "ideology" or "principles," and as distinct from "tactics."

But policy has to be implemented, often after a great deal of compromise on principle.

It seems to me that "wonkishness" is a lot closer to "tactics" than it is to "ideology."

When I think "wonk," I think of Clinton or Gore, who were famously anti-ideological.

And of course Clinton was thought be progressives to be famously unprincipled.

Yes, the internets are wild and wooly places full of thrills and dangers and some of them do fall into the blogosphere.

you must live a very sheltered and deluded life.

The rethugs, led by rove and cheney, have redefined political "winning". I, for one, will no longer be a reasonable, nice guy dem. I now support Russ Feingold, and what he stands for, as he is the closest pol that represents me ( almost 100% in sync ).
No more giving in, no more compromise. We need to do some serious national house cleaning, beginning in November, 2006, and will be matching the rovians in tactics this time, if need be. Sick and tired of getting gamed by my own dem "leaders". Kos is a helluva good spokesman for more of us than you might care to realize. I am a 57 year old Navy vet, and am ashamed of what my country has become under these posers in our White House.

KD: "Still, liberals will be back in power someday"

That will not happen by itself, and if the GOP has its way, it will never happen. They are doing what they can to establish a dictatorship. Fitzgerald's investigation, and the Abramoff scandal may slow them down, but the GOP machine, and the forces behind it, will keep moving forward unless met with equal or greater force. I don't think pro-democracy forces in this country are prepared yet to engage in that battle. If they wait too long, it will get harder and harder to prevail.

Check out The latest political comics from The Hollywood Liberal

A Christmas Message From The Republicans
http://www.thehollywoodliberal.com

If you like those, there are lots more AT. http://www.thehollywoodliberal.com/comic_feature_links.htm

Thank You

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on December 22, 2005 at 9:50 PM

Perhaps that sentence should have been labeled as sarcasm or *snark* as that was how it was intended.

Some of the other reponses that mentioned visiting Daily Kos put me in mind of my cat's response to stepping into snow on the deck; he stands there and shakes his paw with a most disgusted look.

brian,

Overall, he has put together a remarkably successful site, but if you have the patience to read through a set of comments, you will be amazed at the lack of smart/depth of the posters.

What, like your comments?

Has anyone else noticed the similarities between KOS and Howard Dean?

They are both brash, cocky, loud. They are good at getting attention and very good at raising money. They are confrontational. They both think they know the answer to they current woes of the Democratic party - just ask them!

And most amazing - they both have track records of losing elections! Dean had a famous flame-out in 2004, and the KOS candidates all lost. But ironically, the more they lose the more influential they become in the Democratic Party!

So, um, if you can't beat em, join em? yes, in a competitive world, it's eat or die. I can agree with that. But, my friends, what would differentiate a Democratic "rove" from a republican "rove"? No longer caring about policy, but only about winning, would reduce all of the United States to: it's not how you play, it's whether you win or lose that counts. In other words, the means justify the ends. Democrats will become as bad as republicans.

Haven't read a lot of the comments, kind of short on time today, but I don't think it's accurate that the blogosphere lacks serious thinkers on either side. It's the wrecking crews that get the most attention, and are the most fun to read, I suppose.

Even the "wrecking crews" have their good points, and the implication that they are shy on deep thinking may be an unfair one.

Wrecking Crew associate member Number 1, reporting for duty...

Is it wrong to be a policy wonk?

**Michael Moore is not "shrill".

Why do the "sensible liberals" at Washington Monthly consistently embrace right-wing Republican characterizations, charicatures, frames and talking points?

Such as the notion that anyone who outspokenly criticizes Bush or dares to tell the hideous truth about the Bush administration is "shrill"?**

Secular Animist
Hear, hear! Michael Moore is well to my left and I thought Fahrenheit 9/11 was a poorly made movie--disjointed and it stepped all over itself. I also think Howard Dean is a political klutz who has been right about exactly two things: Iraq and health care. But the eagerness of Dems/lefties/progressives to eat their own is amazing. Can you imagine a Weekly Standard article taking this tone about Limbo, Hannity, O'Reilly or even Coulter? On the right, the great moral flaws of someone like Moore, Dean, or Kos are treated as quirks, even endearing eccentricities,
and as far as what someone said about Kos embodying the Dems' inability to concentrate on issues, this is actually one of DK's pet peeves, like the prochoices who scared Jim Langevin (?) off when he could have taken out L Chaffee, who talks nice and votes with Frist and Rove. And Kos is one of the prime movers behind the Fighting Dems. Finally, I haven't yet read the WaMo article, but he regular posts an "I'm not the gatekeeper" post about how he is not the king-maker, much less the wannabe king-maker, that so many want to either portray him as, or portray him as striving to be.

Atrios is 100% correct, as usual.

Good point, Jim. We need a "popular front" against bush 2 and gooppers in general. There will be plenty of time to eat our own later.

First: Survive and win.

Oh Christ---- who the fuck cares?

Who gives a shit about "wonkery" when we are in a knife fight for the very existance of a free united states. These are not reasonable people we are dealing with, they are ratfuckers. The only policy debate that exists right now is whether the USA will continue in some kind of recognizable form or become some rough beast worse than Noam Chomsky might dream up.

We need our streetfighters, and thank God for Kos.

I'm sorry. There are times in history when all will be judged by their ability to recognize the virus--- I don't think comparisons to 1936 are too, uh, "shrill" Kevin.

And... nice of you to include that caricture of Kos on your blog. Really imparts whatever else you were too polite to say. Ought to be a nice sinecure at the Washington Post Editorial page waiting for you one day.

Just how is it somebody who is sincere but is so consistently wrong when it comes to picking and backing candidates has the most popular blog in the blogosphere? It boggles the mind.

Moreover, how is it that despite his poor track record he still rakes in the bucks and gets all of this adulation?

Kos is the Jeane Dixon of the blogosphere.

Kevin's expounding on Kos sounds like a Yoga Berra dismissal of a local restaurant: "Nobody goes there any more, it's too crowded."

Seriously, KD, and all you Kos-bashers - revel in your own wonkery all you like, and curse the darkness as is your pleasure. Two things though - first, if "liberals will be back in power someday", it sure isn't going to be because of anything you do, or what gets written at Washington Monthly, that's for sure. Really, who of influence pays attention to this stuff? Or do you guys put that much stock in Clinton's little blurb at the top of this page? All I know is, Obama, Boxer, Feingold, and Schweitzer post on Kos.

Secondly, you over-extend (and thereby misrepresent) the claim that Kos doesn't "care about policy" - you damn well bet he cares about policy, what he doesn't care about are its more intricate details, and getting so hung up on them to the point that you just chase your tail while Republicans win one election after another, despite an electorate that doesn't even share their core values.

And saying that Kos is "shrill, like Michael Moore"? Nice to see that GOP talking points have become adopted word for word without question from such distinguished "liberal" policy wonks. Guess you gotta somehow keep that moderate street cred, eh? You know who butters your bread.

Jackasses. Oops - pardon me for being so "shrill".

Partisan monomania gets you clown policy from groups like PNAC when it comes time to govern.

While I despise the current administration, I fear Dems will succumb to the same disease and end up pulling policy from the same well funded, pet-project hacks we are led by now.

PNAC, Norquist, Reed et al.

I like this site for its quick policy analysis and generally smart reactions to public events, and I like Kos for its information about how Dems can actually win elections, along with its sometime prompts as to how I can help Dems to so. Both kinds of sites serve irreplaceable functions. The functions are not the same. And anyone who thinks Kos doesn't help win elections should really ask Stephanie Herseth. Or Ben Chandler. Or, for that matter, Lloyd Doggett-- by making otherwise-empty races competitive, Kos in particular, and election-oriented Dem sites in general, help Dem incumbents and well-regarded challengers, by forcing Rethugs to play defense and use their funds on Rethug incumbents. It works.

In a world which includes Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, it's quite ridiculous to describe Kos as "shrill." In point of fact, the front page of Daily Kos was at its shrillest when Kos was busy writing his book, and the heavy lifting was being done by other posters, especially Armando.

I've always found Kos to be strong, energetic and partisan, focused on getting Deocrats back in control of the government, but essentially fair-minded. In a political environment where the Republican party wasn't controlled by the far-right, I can easily see Kos giving people on the other side of the aisle their due when appropriate, but in our current predicement there's really very little to be said in favor of the majority of Republican officials, who don't play fair, don't give a damn about comity and working together towards common goals, and are apt to sell out the country in favor of corporate interests or the pet-peeves of a narrow slice of ultra-religionists.

.governors, an elected position that usually has few national implications.

Not true -- governors (not senators) are regularly elected President -- see this.

Markos has a lot more *factual corrections* here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/23/24711/486

It looks like the WaMo reporter wrote a lot of errors that needed correcting.

Community. Community. Community. Community.

People go to DKos to be in an environment of support and likemindedness. Kos himself is a sideshow. His real achievement is that he has built what is an online equivalent of a church for polical people. If you don't like what comes out of that community, join it and change it. That's basic politics. Sniping at it from the sidelines will achieve nothing. This is true for very small scale societies like Daily Kos, and also for the great big societies like the United States of America.

"Last night on Eschaton I had the temerity to say ..."

I've always thought Eschaton as the watering hole for ditthead neanderthal lefties.

Seems that in the cold light of day, Kos is even less happy with the Washington Monthly piece!

Cranky

There is, I think, an irony in Kos's pre-occupation with winning above all.

Namely, he seems so overpowered by the obsession that he advocates approaches that may be counterproductive. He's like a coach that believes that to win a basketball game, the thing he absolutely must do is to send out a bunch of "enforcers" to beat back physically and trash talking the opposing team.

The thing is, that strategy only sometimes works, and in many situations is a prescription for failure.

Not to bring up sore points -- but of course I am -- his die-hard advocacy of Dean is a case in point. Now I like Dean, and he seems to be doing a good and impressive job in his current role, as best I can make out. But as a Presidential candidate, he had vulnerabilities you could spot a mile away. True, he came out swinging (to mix the sport metaphor midstream), if a bit wildly, but he also had a glass jaw -- the civil unions thing in Vermont, and his draft avoidance behavior.

But to Kos, Dean was a God, because he took the fight to the enemy. Yet that feature in isolation hardly wins the day, as satisfying as it may feel to have a guy like that saying about your opposition the things you yourself want so desperately to be said. Really, Kos's obsession with the fight seems to blind him to the realities of who and what really wins.

Now, the DLC is the idiot polar opposite of Kos's approach, with abject deference and foolish compromise the name of their game. And in my view, both extreme approaches are doomed as general strategies.

But Kos has to figure out how to temper his prediliction for "physical" battle with the true demands of the game of winning elections if he's going to use his influence productively.

Tacticians fit neatly into the "let's talk about process and not facts" system we have now.

Watched the Today Show this morning and was once again (you think I'd learn) struck by how much everything was about winning and losing the procedural battles.

Nothing was said about whether the issues fought over are good or bad for the country or whether the talking points issued were factual.

I strongly recommend that you read kos's comment on the article before making any further comments. Seems there were some errors.

I have subscribed to the Washington Monthly for years and loved the magazine. But this article was just horrible because it missed so many obvious points and incorporated so many GOP talking points into its narrative (as many of you have noted above).

Point 1 missed: one obvious point: Blogs are writing. Kos (and you Kevin) are leading bloggers because you are two of the best writers around. You consistently get to the point clearly and concisely.

Point 2 missed: Kos and you, Kevin rose to prominence because you both nailed stories in advance. (Kevin - the whole National Guard issue - included highlighting the idiot that CBS used). Kos' early strike that I remember was the mercenaries who went into Fallujah. He got a horrible response. But he was right: what was an ex-member of the South African special forces doing in Fallujah? And of course this dumb article just called them "contractors", which missed the whole point of Kos' rant.

Point 3 missed: As noted above, one of Kos' amazing achievements has been the bevy of writers whom he has cultivated and sponsored. Steve Soto, Gaillard, Armando, etc. He has turned the blog into one huge discussion group. And Josh Marshall has taken that model and is building another one.

Point 4: The whole tactical charge and that he just wants to win is assertion are idiotic. Kos has been pretty impressive in pointing out when Democratic tactics betray certain core Democratic policies and principals. And has been good at pointing out how slimy that makes the Democrats seem.

Lastly the article just utterly failed on the fact check - it did get little things wrong in almost every paragraph. And that quoting the DLC was just obnoxious - Kos has made it pretty clear why that organization has damaged the democratic prospects.

> to beat back physically and trash talking the
> opposing team.
>
> The thing is, that strategy only sometimes works,
> and in many situations is a prescription for
> failure.

The thing is, that tactic has been working pretty consistently for the Radicals since 1994. And well before that, if you count all the dogcatcher/school board/alderman/state representative races the Radicals have been fighting tooth and nail since 1980.

Now, just becuase it works for the Radicals doesn't mean that reasonable people should adapt it. Maybe another approach would be better. But since the DLC "lay down in front of the oncoming steamroller and beg for compromise" approach _hasn't_ been working, it is incumbent on those who disagree with Kos to propose something _different_ and better.

Cranky

The whole tactical charge and that he just wants to win is assertion are idiotic. Kos has been pretty impressive in pointing out when Democratic tactics betray certain core Democratic policies and principals. And has been good at pointing out how slimy that makes the Democrats seem.

I'd say, rather, he has been very good at pointing out when certain tactics contradict rhetorical stances and make Democrats seem to not have solid principals and, therefore, are counterproductive as tactics aimed at electoral victory, and therefore need to be changed because the rhetorical positions are already well-established in the public mind.

This is purely tactical analysis. Betraying what are established as "core values" is not wrong because it inhibits achieving the policy goals represented by those values, its bad because it makes people look bad and lose.

CMdicely - good nuance.

Yes, Kos has made the point that just tactically most the election consultant moves backfire.

But I didn't buy the article's implication that's because Kos only cares about tactics. I get the sense reading Kos that he really cares about the tactics because he cares about certain core values. But that these values are NOT all the core "liberal" values.

Other point that ticked me off was the the article failed to mention was how important Kos' service was in making him credible in the run up to the Iraq War. He obviously knew that the arguments were BS, a lot more than the chickenhawks.

I hate to come down on any WM writer, because I love much of what this site does, but it really is a lot more than some factual errors in the article that we're talking about here. The article subtly but rather pervasively mischaracterizes Markos in ways that make him unappealing and trivializes (in part with glib inaccuracies about the dkos's demographics) the site that he has built up. On the value of dkos, Samuel Knight comments above from 10:47 AM on the role of Dailykos are very well taken.

Dkos commenter TrueBlueMajority notes that "The definition of a hit piece is about tone rather than facts. There is a way to get many facts wrong and still have appropriate and generally positive tone. There is a way to get all the facts scrupulously right and still have a tone that is inappropriate and generally negative. It's not as nasty as it could have been, true. But openly hostile profiles are too easily dismissed; the most effective hit pieces always appear to be even handed while quietly slipping in the knife in as many places as possible."

Markos -- who will readily admit to being volatile and undiplomatic at times -- is, in Benjamin Wallace-Wells' article, made out to be essentially unprincipled and power-hungry, as well as petty, shrill, flailing, usually wrong, etc.-- although somehow perversely likable in person.

And Dailykos itself is described (to cite TrueBlue's take again) as "harsh, impassioned, raw, humorless, infantile, and absurd. I don't pick up a single positive descriptor of the site and the function it performs. Humorless? What blog have they been reading?"

Oh, and someone who has googled the author finds him to have been involved in the Dartmouth Review. I don't doubt that he has had some genuine conversion away from conservatism since those days, assuming this tidbit to be accurate. But whatever his past, I am certainly left with the impression that Mr. Wallace-Wells had a fairly negative and suspicious frame through which he viewed both Markos and Dailykos, and he allowed that to fill in -- to a rather disturbing degree that I am sorry to see WM endorse -- essential details of the tone and substance of his profile

If this piece struck you as an excellent article, Kevin, I guess, well... I'm not sure how I want to end that sentence. Political life is plenty busy right now, to be sure, but please do take another look.

BTW, just to be clear, you are certainly right that the point you quote from the article is an important one. My take on it is that the first paragraph is mainly true and the second (that Markos cares *not at all* about ideology -- even if he might sometimes claim that to be true) is not.

Yes, Kos has made the point that just tactically most the election consultant moves backfire.

And, in case I wasn't clear on that, I think its an important mistake to make since, after all, it clearly cost us the 2000 election (Yeah, yeah, we wuz robbed, whatever. Wouldn't have mattered if we hadn't screwed up the campaign; wouldn't have been close enough to be stolen.) 2004 is debatable, but you can certainly point to some counterproductive compromising moves there, too.

I'm not sure if I intended to say "important mistake to point out" or "important point to make"; I suspect the two phrasings collided in my mind and the resulting train-wreck of a sentence is what came out.

The writer wrote in the Dartmouth Review? Wow - reminds me of Marshall Whitmann, who used to work for the Christian Coalition and McCain.

Yes, I do doubt the author's conversion. Once you choose to write for a trashy piece of subsidized right wing garbage like the Dartmouth Review it's awfully hard to make the case that you're all of a sudden pure.

And it really fits. The article just reeked of sneaky little GOP spin moves. Lots of little ways to make the target unlikeable.

BTW - Have any of you read Garance's little piece at TAPPED saying how wonderful the article was? And in casually insinuating that only nutty lefties would not like the article?

Especially nice from someone who thought that Matt Bai's idiotic economics article was good.

"Oh, and someone who has googled the author finds him to have been involved in the Dartmouth Review. I don't doubt that he has had some genuine conversion away from conservatism since those days, assuming this tidbit to be accurate. But whatever his past, I am certainly left with the impression that Mr. Wallace-Wells had a fairly negative and suspicious frame through which he viewed both Markos and Dailykos, and he allowed that to fill in -- to a rather disturbing degree that I am sorry to see WM endorse -- essential details of the tone and substance of his profile

Nobody needs to read the WM article to know what the writer says is basically true.

All one had to do was be around during the primaries and so forth.

People like the community atmosphere over there, now that the site is no longer a true blog but more a discussion board like Democratic Underground and Table Talk. But in terms of strategy, analysis, or much else, forget Kos.

Oh great. Let's forget the most read progressive writer.

Maybe go with those DC pros. That'll work!

Samuel -

I take GFR far more seriously at the moment than I do Mr. W-W. But the more I chew on this, the more I find myself backing away from my initial harsh response, at least for the moment. How and whether Washington Monthly chooses to respond to this little brouhaha will be telling.

But although W-W's article made me mad, I can't say (even if he did write for the Review) that I know it was done in bad faith. I guess I'm trying to step out of my own shoes a bit here and acknowledge that 'hit piece' is to a certain extent in the eye of the beholder. Enough crazyness goes on online that I will try to reserve judgement a bit longer.

Though it disturbs me that GFR praises the article so highly, this has highlighted for me the fact that this is about a lot more than one writer's biases or accuracy.

Let me really step back then and say a few words with one foot planted over at Dkos and one on the treacherous terrain of 'neutral' observation.

The lovable but at times hellacious mess that is Dailykos: its sheer scale, combined with its impassioned, decentralized, yet organized mucking around in so much controversy, has become a bit of a touchstone for, and spawner of, new things in online community.

But this new social species (with many anticedents to be sure like Slashdot and Kiro4hin) -- is, like cities or nations or any other emergence, going through all manner of unsightly birth pangs, some major and some minor. And it can be rather terrifying to watch, or get caught up in, as well as exhilirating and all the rest.

Online communities, with their partial anonymity of voice and lack of physical community, have had a strong tendency toward volatility and eventual crash-and-burn dynamics, sometimes followed by rebirth, but usually with a huge loss of continuity. This has been documented many times in recent years. We are only just finding ways to cope.

Markos, in all his human pricklyness and (not merely tactical) brilliance and (at times) lack of graciousness, becomes a convenient lightning rod for criticism. But the issues here are much bigger than that.

Looking seriously at both Dailykos and Markos is one, perhaps important, window into some the history of our present moment. As another Kossack wrote in commenting on the article in question, it would be nice to see a deeper and more thoughtful piece along these same lines, "a serious and even-handed piece that accurately describes you (with all your humanity and flaws) and dKos (with all its humanity and flaws) without this level of backhanded slaps and snark."

I hope that folks who are not 'Kossacks' and are reading this will not dismiss me as a zealot.
Dailykos -- along with whatever its example and influence may help to stimulate -- is by no means above criticism. No more than a force like fire or a tool like the telephone or radio could be said to do no harm.

I do believe that Markos is sometimes unfairly dismissed as someone who just happened to fall into this and had a knack for stoking people's partisan fanaticism.

On the contrary, he has made many conscious decisions early on -- and since -- that have taken what might have been just another top-100 blog and helped turn it into a true phenomena, something new under the sun. This appears to have been based on his observations of what worked and what didn't in some of the earlier efforts at building online political activist community on the left.

Powerful things *do* bear watching. Most especially, *brand new* powerful things like Dkos bear watching. The site could be said to have passed from its terrible twos to something like the self-assuredness and confidence of a precocious three-year-old. When I say terrible twos, I'm thinking of the "pie wars" and similar trauma. Those were, in addition to the concrete issues at stake like the validity of the Ohio results and tolerating sexism, fundamentally about community standards and obligations. This was a painful period, but one which also helped to spawn a healthy diaspora of smaller and more intimate online activist communities.

So I'm trying to say that Dailykos is deserving of deeper and more-informed scrutiny from folks disturbed by some of what they see and hear both on and about the site. On the converse, since the crux of both Kevin and GFR's admiration of this article seems to be that it highlights what GFR describes as "the tension at the heart of the new, online progressive movement, which is that it is fiercely committed to winning above all else, and yet oddly indifferent to and flexible on questions of policy," we would do well to acknowledge that there is some truth in that.

Though any thoughtful Kossack can probably come up with several examples to challenge the sweep of such assertions, we should also take a hard look at what is being said there. There's a lot at stake in how these questions play out.

at the risk of wearing out my welcome, I will add one brief note to the little essay above.

I get a bit sweeping myself at times. In talking about the historic nature of what dkos appears to be, I am reacting in part to some of the stats GFR cites such as "The site, which has existed for only around three and a half years, now has 3.7 million readers each week. That's more than the top 10 opinion magazines -- of both left and right -- combined, more readers than any political publication has had, ever, in the history of the world."

I don't mean to imply that innovation in blogging or anywhere else revolves around dailykos.com. Only that given what it has become, it may come to be seen as one of many crucial turning points in the evolution of online community and densely networked human conversation, joining other milestones along the way, from The Well to Wikipedia.

one last tidbit for y'all: according to Markos , "The Washington Monthly is working on a major correction on their piece about me."

[http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/23/13547/761]

Need your opinion: Online political news survey! ($10 reward possible)

Hello!
My name is Daekyung (danny) Kim, a Ph.D. student studying journalism and mass communication in Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. I am emailing to ask you to do me a favor. I am now working on my dissertation whose topic is about online news and want to gather information about how and why Internet users are using news Web sites for political information based on an online survey.

This online survey will approximately take 15-20 minutes to complete. After collecting the data, I will draw to pick up 50 respondents among those who complete this survey and each will be given $ 10 gift card.

Would you please spend some time to fill out this survey? http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=594061481532
(please click on the address, OR if not working, copy it into the URL address)
Your experience will be very useful in understanding how politically interested online users are using online news and the consequent effect on traditional news media.

You can withdraw the survey at any time you want. All responses will be kept confidential and only be used for academic purposes. This survey has been reviewed and approved by the SIUC Human Subject Committee. So, there are no questions that may identify personal information.

Thank you very much in advance for your cooperation. Please email me back if you have further concerns or questions.
Merry Christmas!