It's official: "netroots" is accepted as a real word by Merriam-Webster dictionary. They provide the following definition: "the grassroots political activists who communicate via the Internet especially by blogs."

While this is a blog where those on the right come to share ideas and disagree, it's always nice to see an online strategy fight between Democrats. Kirsten Powers, registered Democrat, former Clinton administration official and now columnist for the New York Post, today wrote a scathing critique of liberal bloggers like Markos Moulitsas. To give some emphasis to her distaste, the title of the column today is "Net-Roots Ninnies: Dem Left's Dumb Bam Slams." Let's see what Powers has to say:

"One top liberal blogger opined last week that Obama's drop in a recent Newsweek poll resulted from his vote for a compromise on FISA, the intelligence surveillance law. Ridiculous: The average American voter can't describe what FISA is. Meanwhile, a virtual mutiny is taking place on Obama's campaign Web site, which is swamped with angry complaints that Obama has sold out his 'base.' Newsflash to the netroots and the media (which seems perpetually confused on this issue): The netroots are not the base of the Democratic Party. Overwhelmingly white, male and highly educated, they're a loud anomaly in a party that's wholly dependent on the votes of African Americans, women and working-class whites."

I love it! This really does show the central divide in the modern-day Democratic party: the educated white male who voted for Obama in the primaries and the working-class whites who voted for Clinton in the primaries. Matt Bai, from the NYT Magazine, points out something interesting that many who've looked at the numbers also emphasize: "Obama did best in areas that have either a large concentration of African-American voters or hardly any at all, but he struggled in places where the population is decidedly mixed."

Well, all that bellowing from Connecticut's contribution to climate change, Senator for Life Chris Dodd, has finally come to a merciful end. He garnered less than one third of the Senate behind his "screw the phone company" amendment to the FISA bill

 http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0708/070908cdpm2.htm

Guess lots of Democrats are up for "shredding the constitution". So much for Glenn Greenwald telling them they had nothing to fear from dismantling our intel capabilities. 

and in other news, Dodd's $300 Billion thank you note to the subprime mortgage indistry looks like it will pass the Senate thanks to the "Tommy Republicans",http://www.thenextright.com/ironman/the-tommy-republicans but  then it faces a quagmire in conference with the House

Federal housing rescue faces new delay in Congress

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j5mlxGEjEsKSYimbvNffCfdm_GoQD91QJ6KG0

Perhaps this monstrosity posing as compassion, which is a bailout to reckless lenders and left wing activists, will fall of its own weight given enough time...one hopes

Chris Dodd's Summer of No Love, loses on his signature issue of FISA telecom immunity badly and likely to see his brainchild of a mortgage bailout (made necessary by a Banking Committee chairman who abandoned his post in the midst of crisis)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/06/AR2007110602146.html  going slowly under the waves...

Barack Obama has built a mythical fundraising operation based on small-dollar donors. These were primarily upper-middle class affluents who were energized by a change message. These were also the netroots. Recall that the 3 issues at the core of the netroots are FISA, Iraq, and net neutrality. Obama's recent actions seem to be going to be undermining his appeal with both of these groups, with potentially disastrous consequences for his small-dollar online fundraising.

Obama has now shifted to the right on FISA. It certainly looks like he is in mid-flip on Iraq. Marc Ambinder asks today:

My question is: is any of this seeping through the filter between politically engaged activists and the rest of the Democratic electorate? In other words: will see enthusiasm for Obama diminish?

In reference to a scathing NYT editorial that also attacks Obama for flipping on guns, the death penalty, and other issues. The NYT ends with:

There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.

Which must count as a warning on his Iraq position.

What happens to Obama's fundraising if this march of flip-floppery continues? He loses energy among his "change" constituency as he becomes "just another politician". His netroots, affluent coalition weakens tremendously.

Does his small-dollar fundraising evaporate?

I joined the FISA protest group at myBO. I have copied the text of some of the emails that go out to the list below the fold. The anger is palpable.

Earlier this week, Allen wrote about an intriguing twist to Barack Obama's use of campaign social networking tools: his supporters are actively using MyBO to organize against Obama's stand on FISA. The group is now up to 18,240 members, the largest such group on his website.

Obama is getting lots of credit for allowing this kind of thing to go on under his digital roof, most prominently from the Jay Rosens and Jeff Jarvises of the world.

But this development is more properly seen as a natural evolution in any open, networked system that is allowed to operate in the political space. The credit belongs to his supporters, not Obama.

It's now a truism that when presented with an open platform, users will hack it to serve their purposes, not necessarily those of the sponsor. Many times, those two sets of priorities are intertwined (e.g. supporters desire to get involved matched with a campaign's need for volunteers), though in this case, they weren't.

The netroots' break with Barack Obama on FISA is the first taste of what's to come in a stormy relationship between the netroots and the White House if Obama wins.

Sure, Kos has accused the Democratic Congress of "capitulation" before. But their ultimate response has been to elect "more and better Democrats" in 2008 to override the risk of needing to make pragmatic compromises. Now that the prize is within reach -- with Obama favored and larger Democratic majorities in the offing -- compromise starts becoming inexcusable. Disappointment will give way to disgust. And disgust will give way to apathy.

We should know. We are part of the Republican base.

from yesterday's Hartford Courant web site... the Senator expressed anger that Nevada Senator John Ensign would delay the mortgage bailout bill to get his renewable energy bill voted on

We awoke this morning to the reports that a compromise has been reached between the Bush Administration and Congress on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The best reporting that I've seen on this so far is from the Wall Street Journal's Siobhan Gorman (Deal Set on Domestic Spy Powers). The best (and most humorous) analysis that I've see is at RedState by Moe Lane (The FISA Controversy, in tedious Question and Answer form).

It really is a win for the Bush Administration, and a loss for the Democrats, including Barack Obama. The Dems have been screaming for years about this illegal domestic spying program - this bill puts the lie to that meme. It acknowledges that FISA warrants were never before required for eavesdropping suspects overseas, but that with new systems that routes world-wide communications through the United States, it was time to allow for FISA to be updated to reflect the realities of the latest technologies. The government will be allowed, in circumstances that dictate it, immediate authority to commence wiretaps as long as they notify the FISA Court within 7 days. The Court would then have 30 days to approve a warrant, during which time the surveillance can continue. The FISA bill also offers retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who assisted the federal government post-9/11. The current lawsuits by liberal groups will be allowed to go forward, but will be dismissed upon the production of evidence that the companies were complying with the request of the federal government and the President.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, the problem all along was the liberal base of the Democratic Party, and their minions in Congress:

The outcome was driven largely by the realities of election-year politics. Democrats, particularly more conservative ones, in vulnerable re-election races couldn't afford to appear to be dodging a big national-security issue. And many believed the law needed to be updated before surveillance orders expired in August. House Democratic leaders struggled for months to find a proposal their entire party could support but couldn't overcome splits between conservative and liberal Democrats -- some of whom are reacting angrily to the deal.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama will have to decide whether to support it and risk the wrath of his party's left wing, or vote against it and risk losing support from independents. One top Democratic lawmaker said the Democrats delayed the announcement by a couple of days, in part to give the presumptive nominee time to assess his position.

Note that last section: "One top Democratic lawmaker said the Democrats delayed the announcement by a couple of days, in part to give the presumptive nominee time to assess his position". Barack Obama is a man who wants to be President. Being President means that you have to be able to make split second decisions, yet Obama needed a few days to figure out what his position was! Talk about not ready for prime time...

Perhaps Obama is worried about statements like this from January, posted by Jane Hamsher on Firedoglake.com:

I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill.

Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.

The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.


No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.

That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.

A grassroots movement of Americans has pushed this issue to the forefront. You have come together across this country. You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power – and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law.


It's time for Washington to hear your voices, and to act. I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come. And when I am President, the American people will once again be able to trust that their government will stand for justice, and will defend the liberties that we hold so dear as vigorously as we defend our security.

I'm not sure why Obama needed to figure out his position - he's consistently voted against the revision of FISA for years. So I guess that means that Obama will be voting against this bill. Which would put him at odds with the vast majority of Americans, who supported this so-called "domestic spying" - even after the New York Times first exposed it. In fact, Americans were supporting the Bush Administration on this issue even in the New York Times own poll conducted shortly after their 'expose'.

Oh wait, since this particular wiretapping issue polls well with the American voters, perhaps he'll flip-flop and vote for the revision this time, saying something along the lines of "this revision isn't the revision that I thought I knew", or some such nonsense. If so, this is the type of flip-flopping on an issue dear to the Left's cold hearts, to go along with the Democrats' soon-to-be total capitulation on Iraq war funding, that will enrage their base. And as their base works more on emotion than intellect, they will inevitably carry this grudge all the way to election day. That will probably be true on both a Presidential and Congressional level.

So Obama and the Democrats are in a no-win situation, no matter how their mainstream media parses it. If they vote against it, they appear even weaker on national security than they already are. If they vote for it, their words and rhetoric are once again proven to be meaningless.

As for the Independents on whom it appears Election 2008 will hinge, words matter. Promises matter. And it's becoming more and more apparent that the words and the promises of the Democrats', and in particular Barack Obama's, mean nothing.