As you may know, I'm currently writing a book -along with Nate Wilcox, formerly of Mark Warner's Presidential campaign - entitled, "Netroots Rising: How Citizen Activists are Changing American Politics." The book, which is scheduled to be published next spring by Praeger, will look at the "rise" of the netroots, starting particularly in 2003 with the Dean and Clark phenomena, continuing through the 2005 rise in state-level netroots activism (including here in Virginia) and the fall of Tom DeLay, and culminating in the netroots-fueled victories of Jon Tester, Jim Webb, and several others last year. The book is primarily story driven - you'll recognize many of the characters - along with an analytic component to try to figure out what it all means.
Today, there are two articles in the Washington Post about the "netroots rising" - "The Rise of Kos" by EJ Dionne, and "'Net Roots' Event Becomes Democrats' Other National Convention" by Jose Antonio Vargas.
In short, Dionne's article argues that Democrats are "paying homage" to Markos "because he has started to beat Limbaugh and O'Reilly at their own game." And Vargas quotes Simon Rosenberg of the New Democratic Network that "how fast [the netroots have] risen from the periphery to the center is a big cultural change -- and everyone's grappling with it." In fact, according to Rosenberg, "[t]hese days you can't have a dialogue in Democratic politics without talking about what the Net roots are thinking."
Regarding the attacks by right wingers like Bill O'LIElly on the netroots, both articles more or less conclude that it's because Rush, Bill et al. feel threatened by the "netroots rising." Which is undoubtedly why the tone of right-wingers' attacks so often has an edge of hysteria: they know they're losing the battle of ideas, but they don't know what to do about it.
So, in true right-wing fashion, they lash out, trying to brand a strongly pro-Democratic website like Daily Kos (or this one, for that matter) as "far left wing," "out of the mainstream" or whatever. True, the pro-Democratic blogs tend to be more liberal than the American public as a whole, just as the pro-Republican blogs are more conservative. And both have a sarcastic, snarky, sometimes nasty edge to them that can be off-putting.
On the other hand, think about all the crazy, bigoted, hateful things that have spewed from the mouths of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bill O'LIElly, Neal Boortz, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and many more right wingers over the years. A comprehensive list of these peoples' "greatest hits," from blaming the heroic teachers and students at Virginia Tech for being "candy asses" to blaming feminists, liberals and gays for the 9/11 attacks, would be a long and despicable one. Yet they attack the liberal blogs, which have done so much over the past 5 years to restore accountability to our system, provide a check on the so-called "mainstream media," to challenge the worst Administration in U.S. history, and to shine a spotlight on stuff that almost nobody else has been willing to do.
Well, as the great Mahatma Gandhi said, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win." And let there be no mistake: the rising netroots is winning, the right-wing talk radio blowhards are losing, American citizen-activists are feeling more empowered than they have in years, and the corrupt powers that be are worried. Good.
Yeah, let's not go after the terrorists who attacks us on 9/11, that's a great idea Glenn. By the way, is this the new Republican line, that we shouldn't do whatever it takes to bring the murderers of 3,000 Americans to justice? And the Republicans are supposed to be the ones who are "strong" on defending America? What a joke.
Hey, it's gotta start somewhere, why not here?