In a Matt Yglesias post discussing John Edwards strong "netroots support", Dave Weigel provides a comment that intrigues me:

I'm intrigued by the fact that Edwards is so much stronger among the netroots than among Democrats at large.

The netroots like to be stroked, and he strokes them. Examples: The netroots don't think the elected Democrats are doing enough to end the war, and Edwards says as much.

. . . A favorite theme on the right-wing blogs (and among some pundits, like Barone) is that the netroots are issuing commands to Edwards et al. That's mostly bulls**t. The netroots are VERY VERY CLEAR about what they want, and the candidates that notice this and feed them red meat reap immediate rewards.

Posted by: David Weigel on April 17, 2007 02:46 PM

My first question, is there anyone or any group that does NOT like to be stroked? What does that mean exactly? Does Labor NOT support candidates who "Stroke" them by supporting policies they prefer? Does NOW and NARAL not support candidates that support the policies they prefer? Why is the Netroots unique in wanting to be "stroked?"

My second question, if "doing something on Iraq" is the Netroots' signature issue, why did Chris Dodd not skyrocket in suppport when he came out for Reid-Feingold? It's my number one issue and Dodd's sponsorship of Reid-Feingold is THE REASON I am supporting him. There is not one other person on the blogs that I know of that has made the choice I have on this. So is Iraq really the Netroots' signature issue? I've argued it should be but it clearly is not. So then why is the Netroots for Edwards? My theory on the flip.

Happy 5th Blogiversary to Eschaton/Atrios. Many congrats to Duncan. And yes, as far as I know, I coined that phrase.

Atrios has good posts up today on the Virginia Tech shootings.

The silicon chip inside her head
Gets switched to overload.
And nobody's gonna go to school today,
She's going to make them stay at home.
And daddy doesn't understand it,
He always said she was as good as gold.
And he can see no reason
'Cause there are no reasons
What reason do you need to be shown?

Tell me why?
I don't like Mondays.
Tell me why?
I don't like Mondays.
Tell me why?
I don't like Mondays.
I want to shoot
The whole day down.

Talk about what is on your mind.

And don't forget the diaries. They are located just below the Recent Comments Table to the right.

Right now the recommended diaries include some great ones, including this one from scribe, Rove is toast.

And a reminder, Gwen Ifill on Meet the Press is must see TV.

One of the best excerpts on the flip.

I'm headed to the airport now to visit a client in jail in Nebraska tomorrow and Monday. In case it gets quiet around here, please use this as an open thread.

I'll be back late Monday night, but will be checking in from time to time.

What Matt said.

See also my vitriolic attack on SYFPism, quoting pach:

It's amazing to me to see how many commenters are personality/candidate partisans rather than progressive value partisans, independent of candidate affiliation. . . . The purpose of writing about this stuff is to make a public argument about the role of the US in foriegn policy, a discussion that is not really happening today. I happen to agree with Matt on all these fronts. This is what a progressive movement does: put pressure on the party and its high profile candidates to transform the conversation from one dominated by the Georgetown foreign policy elites.

E.J. Graff makes a simple but important point about the fact that women face hateful speech at higher rates than men; it is NOT a web based phenomenon:

here's what has been missed in the discussion of Kathy Sierra's horrific experience, as far as I can tell: this happens in the world, not just on the web. What's happened to Sierra is a virtual extension of the sexual harassment that hits women in any predominantly male field, what I've come to think of as "barrier" sexual harassment: making it clear to women that they don't belong and will be violated if they stay.

From Hillary Clinton to women academics, particularly in the sciences, to sports coverage to news anchors (yes, I think Katie Couric is awful, but no more so than Brian Williams, and it seems clear to me that Couric is heaped with much more abuse than Williams), to women bloggers, they face much more abuse than men generally (I am the exception that proves the rule, but then I heaped more abuse on folks than anyone in the history of blogging as well so it was to be expected.)

What I'm reading today so far:

• Terry Kindlon's op-ed at Common Dreams criticizing Kathleen Parker's column in which she opined that the British shouldn't have sent a female sailor to war.

• Larissa at Raw Story reporting on the alleged human trafficking of Indian guest workers at a Mississippi shipyard.

• Scribe's diary on Karl Rove and the missing e-mails.

• Avedon Carol on Kurt Vonnegut and all her posts linking to what others are writing. Sideshow is where I go to catch up with the daily blogosphere.

Jessica Takes a Cheap Shot:

Misogyny in our midst

By Jessica Valenti

Last week I wrote an article for The Guardian (UK) about online misogyny, using Kathy Sierra's experience as a jumping off point.

One of the things I wrote in detail about in the article was the unbelievable responses to Sierra's story. . . . Sadly, I expected to find these kinds of reactions in certain places on the internet. What I didn't expect was to find them so close to home, and from a progressive "leader" in the blogosphere, no less!

Kos on Kathy Sierra and female bloggers being harassed and getting death threats:

Look, if you blog, and blog about controversial sh*t, you'll get idiotic emails. Most of the time, said "death threats" don't even exist -- evidenced by the fact that the crying bloggers and journalists always fail to produce said "death threats" ...Email makes it easy for stupid people to send stupid emails to public figures. If they can't handle a little heat in their email inbox, then really, they should try another line of work.

. . . Seriously though, it's one thing to argue--as Markos does--that a blogger code of conduct would be ineffective. Fine. But dismissing online misogyny and Sierra's experience (without even bothering to do any research on the subject, to boot) is reprehensible. Though predictable given the source.

Jessica accuses Markos of misogyny for not writing about the misogny issues regarding the Kathy Sierra issue? As Jessica noted, Markos' point is a code of conduct ain't gonna stop it.

As always, speaking for me only.

Via Yglesias, Eric Alterman describes in stark terms what the MSM punditry dislikes about blogs:

Back in the pre-Internet days of yore, political punditry was the best job in journalism and one of the best anywhere. You could spout off on anything you wanted, and almost nobody would call you on it, much less find a place to publish and prove you wrong. . . . The advent of the Internet--particularly the blogosphere--has changed all that. Now, not only are the things pundits say and write preserved for posterity; there are legions of folks who track pundit pronouncements, fact-check their statements and compare them with previous utterances on the same and similar topics. . . .

All true, and brilliantly stated. But I worry about the same type of process happening with the blogs. Most Left bloggers are indeed quite good. Some, like Digby and Glenn Greenwald, are consistently brilliant. But no one should be immune from questioning and disagreement. I hope we can avoid the logrolling nature that became, and still is, the MSM punditry.

More...

It's time for the Tuesday Open Thread.

I've been looking for a place to post this photo of my cousin Max, taken on his cell phone last week. He's the same age as the TL kid. What a cutie. He's given me permission to post it, with the caveat, "I dont mind as long as its not used to shed any negative light on Paris herself. After meeting her I would have nothing but positive nice things to say."

So please, no Paris insults in the comments.

And now, for your news and thoughts of the day.

I can only chuckle at stories like this:

Is it too late to bring civility to the Web? The conversational free-for-all on the Internet known as the blogosphere can be a prickly and unpleasant place. Now, a few high-profile figures in high-tech are proposing a blogger code of conduct to clean up the quality of online discourse. Last week, Tim O’Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is credited with coining the term Web 2.0, began working with Jimmy Wales, creator of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of guidelines to shape online discussion and debate.

The irony of Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia, whose online project has been used innumerable times in the most uncivil and unethical ways, preaching civility and control is the funniest thing I have read all day. I read the article and NO MENTION of Wikipedia's role in outing, false vicious attacks and general misbehaving is discussed. Here's my suggestion for Mr. Jimmy Wales, take care of the huge mess in your own house before you start doling out advice please.