He actually admitted in one post during the primaries that the Clinton campaign met with a group of bloggers once at the very beginning of the campaign and then didn't "keep in touch".  Never kept coming back for advice.  Never said a formal thanks if they wrote something complimentary.  Basically, Hillary wasn't nice enough to them.  So, they started to "trash" her.

So I was comfortable, or so I thought.  When the media starting their sexist, Hillary trashing game, it pressed a button I did not know was there.  I saw through their sick humor, their spin.  They could not stand the notion of a strong, mature woman being "the one."  And the silence of the DNC angered me.....and then their dishonesty, their betrayal put me over the top in anger.

I am scared for our country more than ever.  That anyone, after the last eight years cannot see through the sanctimony, the hypocrisy, the spin and lies, and the egos of our media is beyond comprehension.  And so many of the blogs are just amateur versions of ego driven gamers.

How did we get to where people can call themselves "Left/liberal/progressive" and still say "sure a woman, just not THAT woman..."  It was another spin on the old canard of "sure a black, just not THAT black" about Jesse Jackson.

So Barack is hailed as their proof that they are not bigots?  Even thought they are and remain so.
And Palin is the proof that some on the right are not sexist, even though they are.

Respectful debate on the issues is more convincing than headhunting...even if headhunting seems like it may have a bigger payoff, it is hardly a guarantee and can backfire (see:  New Hampshire, Dem Primary, 08).  

I think Stoller's point about the conflation of "grassroots" and "progressive" is also well-taken.  Unfortunately, that seems to be a recent realization on their part.  Obama's "50 state strategy" for instance.  Many bloggers seemed to support him because of that strategy.  Even though it did not necessarily build up the party and local candidates, as Dean's actual 50 state strategy does; even though it did not have an ideological core that could prevent Obama's right hand turns as the GE began.

One can think of many reasons why the netroots would like Obama (among the reasons thrown out on Open Left is that Obama is more creative class, closer to the average netroots member's age - or at least, the Open Left writer's age).  Many of those reasons stink of elitism, ageism, and basic intolerance of dissent.  Anybody can use the internet, but the netroots seems sometimes determined to not reach out beyond the "creative class."  

This causes a personality-based foundation to what blogs do because that's what their niche currently is.

I don't think there's any way to reason blogs in general out of their current existential circumstance.

Look what happened with Amanda Marcotte and the Edwards campaign.  In that case the Kathryn Lopez's of the world could point to writing of hers that included "profanity" and her views critical of the Catholic Church's position on birth control.  The MSM is more than willing to stoke the controversy and have no problem with placing the right wing gasbags on our living room TVs.

I have always thought that the netroots were a little too vain and a way too thin-skinned.  They want to fully reject any politician who is not seen as embracing them.  In this media environment, anything that is ever written on a "progressive" blog, by either an author or an anonymous poster, can be elevated quite easily to manufacture outrage.  It does not seem to hold true for the poison that is spewed on the hate radio stations or on the right wing blogs.  For the most part, the wingers seem to get a free pass.  

When the candidates, led by Chris Dodd, vowed to filibuster retroactive immunity for the telecoms, that was definitely respect.  There was virtually no opposition to immunity outside the netroots, after all.

Of course, when Obama won the primary and immediately reversed his position on retroactive immunity, that was utter disrespect.  Imagine if a candidate won the Democratic Primary and then turned right around and voted against the Employee Free Choice Act, how would the unions respond?  One of the ways any constituency EARNS respect is through its reaction to being disrespected.

There are, I believe, much smarter ways to register disapproval than by switching your vote to Nader any time a promise gets broken.  For example, Markos responded to Obama flipping on FISA and throwing Wes Clark under the bus by announcing that he wouldn't max out to Obama and would be sending the $2300 to downticket candidates instead.

Perfectly sensible IMO, although any individual's donation is a drop in the bucket.  The test was whether the netroots would follow Markos' lead, and they failed miserably.  Commentors immediately accused Markos of "undermining" the ticket, as though they have a God-given right to his $2300.  (You don't really want to click that last link, there are over 1200 comments!)  People wrote diaries like this one, vowing to raise thousands to make up for Markos' withheld donation.

This, to me, is the sign of a constituency that doesn't WANT respect.  If you're not going to make any effort to reward good behavior (did the netroots ease up on Hillary even an iota when she stuck her neck out to oppose the MoveOn resolution?  heck no!), if you're not going to make any effort to punish bad behavior, then why should any rational politician do anything except take you for granted?

1.  The treatment of Hillary:  they took on all the right wing talking points and started the Clinton's are racist attacks.  I believe that was a manipulation by the Obama campaign.

2.  The Pallindrome races:  they were manipulated by the McCain camp.  Pallin was and is a distraction and they fell for it to derail the issues.  

3.  The MSM listens to the netroots cause they are too lazy or too cheap to do their own investigation and analysis.   So, the MSM picks up their stories, for free, and creates the jumble of noise and distraction.  

the Netroots has been doing the politically stupid thing focusing on Palin because they really hate her.

1. Fundraising
   
2. Being the difference in electing candidates at the primary level
   
3. A major player in how people get news, information, and misinformation.

Progressive is another generalized label, as is liberal (though the latter is less so).

So the notion that we are some sort of joint force that the politicians should listen to is absurd. There's so many opinions that a politician trying to listen would just get confused.

My general belief is that politicians of all stripes depend on volunteers, especially younger ones with free time to burn and extra passion for celebrity worship.

Some politicians have admirable traits that add some appeal to me, but if I wanted a messiah, I wouldn't be an agnostic.

So trying to paint the netroots as sexist, racist, mindless, zombiebotic is really pretty lame. Everyone has certain biases and rarely are two the same. And I usually skip such discussions because the premises at the outset are insulting and simplistic. They demand that we 'prove' at the outset that we're not the 'oppressor idiot du jour' when, in fact, all such proof... isn't.

Respect? I'm with Rodney Dangerfield on that. Respect can't be earned in politics. It has to be bought.

However - and I think Matt's wrong - I think Team Obama does respect the netroots precisely because his bread is buttered with netroots grease. If Matt would like Obama or future politicians to demonstrate it with specific policies, then it might be wise to convene an online convention of a sorts and cobble together a list of specific policy solutions that most of us agree on, so the politician of the moment will know exactly what is being asked of her/him.

Well before the Net, the Democratic party has factionalized accordinng to single issues or demographic demands. That hasn't changed at all with the onset of the Net, or blogs or anything else.

And I, for one, grant no respect for any folks making polarizing demands. I just think: there's no progress in that notion of progressive at all. The fact is, despite our biases and imperfections, there's workshops and other ways to address them. Asking that we become perfected within the short space of a political campaign is the path to multiple and repetitive defeats.

The major influence that can be wielded comes after a candidate more prone to liberal ideas gets elected. Conceding to campaign as an unvarnished  liberal borders on political suicide.

Just as there's some sexism and some racism within the progressive blogosphere, there's age-ism and classism and other divides present. And if we put our central effort on 'curing' those divides amidst a presidential campaign, we're advancing the continuation of those divides, despite thinking we're accomplishing something else.

This year, we saw two talented and savvy politicians campaign against each other. One won, one lost. That fact doesn't have to set us back as a party or a nation. And if it does, and one group says "see what you've done you a$$hole" to the other, then we're really not deserving any more respec than that given to a class of middle-schoolers.

This isn't about 'wait your turn' vs. 'we're tired of waiting." This is about seeking a compromise for the common good that actually does advance specific changes that benefit the aggrieved. But compromise requires some sophistication and a modicum of haggling skills to reach such desirable ends.

In the meantime, when perpetual quibbling replaces that, lumbering tyrantosaurs are only too eager to exploit the gate left open, throwing all demographics backwards, even more.

And that deserves respect? Puh-leaze. That breeds cynicism and withdrawal from political activism as a giant waste of time.

As a liberal, long experience keeps reminding me to focus on the local where real change can be accomplished and I'm regularly tempted to leave the ballot unmarked in presidential campaigns.

As a result, they very quickly stratify and wind up only surrounding themselves with like-minded and right-thinking individuals.  In this environment, ideas, outrages, etc. quickly become magnified until every action and every input is a perceived threat.

But then one of them has to come up with an action plan. And their ideas always have something to do with their readers - oops, this is probably a time they refer to their readers as activists -- giving money to or through ... them.

This means donating to progressive blogs and progressive netroots organizations at least as much as you donate to Democratic campaigns and progressive issue advocacy organizations.

sigh.