DKos is the best present example of the present phenomenom described. It really is the 800 lb. gorilla in the Democratic blogosphere. But it is now extremely difficult to get into any discussion that is fact-based about one candidate or another. It's Jacobin in its ruthlessness. A lot of folks who have been long-term diarists and participants have been posting their own warnings over there over the past few weeks. Apart from a lot of condolences, the people making the most difficulties have nothing to say regarding the warnings.

Sad thing is Clinton won't particulary disappoint as President anymore than we've expected of her absent a lunge for Liebermanism. On the other hand, Obama is going to be a big letdown for his admirers if he actually has to get about the business of governing.

2008, Democrat-wise, it turning into 1968 where Clinton is Humphrey and Obama is McCarthy at the Chicago convention, except that the online rioting has been ongoing for a month now and the Chicago Seven has now gained control of the convention floor.

It'll all be over one way or the other in due course; I'm just not sure what pieces will be left over to pick up. It's seems like Wal-Mart has been bulldozed and we're stuck shopping at several different stores for the basic essentials - or in our case, ideas and perspectives - that we need for our day-to-day thinking. Probably should've been doing more of that anyway.

I will no longer make financial contributions to candidates that Kos recommends or participate in the action alerts that John Aravosis or MoveOn requests. They have completely alienated me, turned me off, pissed me off. It's not that they had differing opinions, it's their downright antagonism toward my preferred candidate, and their arrogant assumption that I would agree with them, even as they contradict the principles they've been espousing for years. In some instances they have been downright hateful.  

There was a time over at DKos that if you stated something as fact and it wasn't factual, you had people quickly telling you not to do that. That all goes out the window the minute that candidates are deemed the official candidate of the blog. Even pointing out that something is not factual will get you hammered.

Why on earth would anyone presume to tell the blogsophere what it SHOULD be?

I have no problem with you expressing your wish that there were more of an issue based discussion in the blogosphere. The best way to do that, of course, is to have an issue based site and to win a following based on that.

But why presume to tell other free people what they SHOULD be talking about? The fact is, that people in general do not tend to vote on issues - as strange as that may seem to policy wonks. The fact that the blogosphere often tends to be candidate-centric is simply an accurate reflection of the tendencies of the society at large.

This incessant idiotic zero sum game is great for the f$$$ing parasites of DC, but

it does (pretty close to) NOTHING to foster sustained community involvement / participation.

http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

When campaigns have to get everything for themselves, for the most part - WHY should they give a hoot about 'The Democratic Party' ?

The party should be in the business of helping people participate - AND

that includes primaries for all all the time.

Are campaigns and campaign cash a HUGE waste of time? YES.

Fix it! elected people, do NOT tell me how you can't fix the freaking rules you make .

this barack hillary stuff is the same merde I saw in carter v kennedy 28 yrs ago, AND every electino since - everybody is so busy fighting over the phone bank place or the phone bank list or the phone bank volunteers for months that

when the smoke has cleared LOTS of people decide

a plague on both your houses.

When I read these live blogging things I and read the prominant blogger dishing some

insight?

and then I see just about the same 'insight' around blog-o-topia

it looks like we're heading for a bunch of new kewl kids instead of hte old kewl kids

whooopppppppppppppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

elites are elites, they look out for themselves first.

And this year, not even the left progressives' darling, Dennis Kucinich. Probably the only person who could really satisfy me would be me, as Pericles wrote at Daily Kos recently:

But it's an illusion to imagine that the ladder stops here - that Kucinich represents uncompromising idealism. Because the truly uncompromising thing would have been to write in a vote for myself.

Nobody represents my views as well as I do. Nobody agrees with me 100%. Nobody would do exactly what I would do. There's nobody I trust as much as I trust myself. In a campaign of ideals, a campaign that takes place entirely within my own head, without reference to polls or pundits or what anybody else thinks -- I win. Me for President.

But I'm not running. Lack of popular support, money and a fat FBI file are slight impediments.

However, while I am and have always been an issues guy, I do have to choose. Every election there is a choice between the Democrat and Republican (other choices, too, of course, but only symbolic ones). I doubt, BTD, that you would argue the progressive blogosphere should not take a stand for one or the other in that case. But I could be wrong.

As for me, I've made my decision for February 5. It's a choice filled with misgivings, concerns, worries, frustrations, and tinged with a bit of cynicism. How could it be otherwise, given that, as aforementioned, I have voted in 10 previous presidential contests and lived with the consequences of two of my choices actually being elected.

My sense is that a political culture whose dominant medium is television inevitably emphasizes issues of character, empathy, trust and personal connection between the candidate and the public rather than emphasizing substantive discussions of policy. That is because television is far better at conveying techniques of character presentation and, conversely, character assassination than it is as a medium for serious discussion of public issues. It is good at telling stories, and portraying good and bad character and less good at conveying nuances of policy and explaining the long term consequences of policies that cannot easily be connected to individual persons and individual story lines.

People think the issues are too complicated and they go by who they trust most to deal with the issues for them. The blogs have been their own little world and mostly text-based and issue-focused, but as more and more people come into the blogosphere they're bringing the dominant paradigm with them. So will the blogs change the political culture or be overwhelmed by it? Even if they don't change it, there's infinite space available in the blogosphere and no gatekeepers that you can't get around, so people who want a more issues based and analytical approach can always set up or seek out sites more to their taste - a more true marketplace of ideas than the controlled market of TV.