Then there are blogs like Daily Howler which didn't change at all during the primary season, and has been very consistent throughout. BTD has been pretty consistent in my view. I could list others, but my point is that someone who was an expert on say the top X number of blogs could construct some sort of continuum in terms of how much a given blog supports dominant narratives vs. how much they challenge them.

As far as Obama being "a pragmatic centrist, much like Hillary," IMO Obama has shown that he is much less willing to take any position that he views has the slightest political risk. Hillary was and is willing to take some risks that Obama has avoided like the plague.

Now I know he, and the other few elderly folks who attended for years had always worked in this republican county for liberal issues: the rights of unions; education, health care, civil rights.  We were the ones who walked the streets, knocking on doors trying to get one of the few democrats elected to state office.  Suddenly our caucus grew from four people to over 50 people.  Yes there were a few very young ones but mostly it was a bunch of thirty and forty somethings.  Many worked at the college, and most were well heeled.  Our Hillary supporters (mostly older women were outnumbered and quite frankly look upon, I felt, with disdain).

This is how I see the netroots: most male, mostly well educated, often well off and all about their egos.  I would bet a ton of money many of my caucus attendees, like many of the netroots at some blogs, were Reagan democrats or at the very least inattentive, do nothing dems who suddenly see voting like American Idol.

I feel cheated and dishonored because there is still here like on certain blogs, in this overwhelmingly for Obama state, a sense of superiority eminating from these neo progresives.  Whether or not Obama moved to center is a moot point to them, just as during the primary whether or not Hillary and Obama were nearly identical on issues was a moot point.  All they would say was, with noses in the air, "Iraq or FISA (as if we didn't get it)."  For these people, health care, education, housing, gas prices, are not important.  WHY?  Because they don't have to decide day to day what is more important on which to spend money: food or gas, food or health care, food or a new roof.   NOW apparently FISA is no big deal either.

Here is my solution - if you do not listen to me on policy - then I will not help you fundraise.

Personally, I thought Markos' statement, in essence an implied call to not donate to Obama - was the smartest thing he could have done. He backed off of it for reasons unknown.

The focus on candidates like Childers and others like him is simply ludicrous - if you care about issues that is.

Personally, I would urge a much stricter policy on who you fundraise for. That the Netroots embraced what you describe and like it is precisely the problem.

You may not have been fooled by Obama, and lots of people on TL have made a similar point about themselves.  It may quite reasonably be a point of pride, but it's irrelevant to the larger issue.  

It's all well and good to say you're not influenced by that, but clearly many people are.  Most are.  Public opinion is shaped by what people see every day from whatever their news source -- MSM, blogs, papers, etc.  Outright lies became 'truth' this year because of massive repetition.  (yes, I know, not just this year but I would argue more this year).  Kos et al have served an important propaganda function for Obama, as well as a mutually-reinforcing propaganda function for him with the media.

Yes, it is really high time for a blogosphere REALITY CHECK but is unlikely that that will happen since the blogosphere is too impressed and in love with itself. Ergo

Obama swept nothing away.

 "The blogosphere has never been anything other than an echo chamber."

Indeed.

And Criticism of the above was strictly verboten by the blogmasters and their minions ... loyalty ueber alles existed among the "name" bloggers who hoped/hope to gain power by sticking together. And that is that.

Some are making money and living off their blogs and seeking power influence without giving credit to those who give to the same blogs for free.  It seems to me we're getting quite close to the closed intellectual environment the right had on the internet in the '90s (fake webrings espousing think tank ideologies, etc.) and there's kind of a creepy sense to it all with the backscratching and manipulation of the public sphere.  A centralization of sorts, not that there isn't still net dissent but some of us will have some sort of access to power and most won't.