blogger interrupted

Since Eric has chimed in, I guess I have to.  HuffPo’s cover blazes out “Serenity Lost” regarding Barack Obama vs. the netroots on FISA.  The quotes are priceless.

“You can see it with FISA. He really doesn’t feel that much kinship with the priorities of the netroots and I don’t think he has made any secret of that,” said Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake. “I have to say he is very consistent. He has gone outside the netroots for his strategy… People who feel betrayed right now, I’m not sure why, because it is extremely consistent with what they should have expected.”

Utter.  Complete.  Nonsense.  I wrote about this on my corporate blog, about how Barack’s approach to the netroots hinged on authenticity toward the audience, rather than pandering to the gatekeepers.

Early in the contest, political bloggers criticized the Obama campaign for a lack of “outreach” to blogs, while the Clinton campaign made a point of holding blogger conference calls, advertising on blogs, and cluing in opinion-leading bloggers to insider stuff. Obama’s approach was bottom-up; raise the money, build the lists, connect everyone, and the rest will come. Clinton’s was top-down; work the opinion-leaders, pay them off with ads, and get them to lead their readers.

We know which one worked. Major bloggers took a step back from the heavy handed approach, and simultaneously began to see their readership leading them. The dollars started to pile up, as friends encouraged friends to donate. Soon the major bloggers’ hands were forced by their own readers. 

This STILL pisses off the “netroots”, i.e., the blog gatekeepers.  And it’s showing on FISA. Nothing has obsessed the “netroots” blog gatekeepers like FISA since the Iraq war itself, and it really has revealed a myopic addiction to ideological purity which has now bloomed in some kind of “disappointment” with our nominee for president.

“We’ll see what he does this week,” said Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos. “If he’s part of the capitulation or refuses to lead, then it’s salient for your story. As of now, I think it’s still too early to write this piece.”

My guess is that Kos’ “capitulation” will be defined as anything other than Barack immolating himself on a fillibuster.  Barack has said, repeatedly, that his objections to the bill have been met, and that’s why he’s supporting the compromise.  Barack’s objections to the bill have never been those of Kos or the “netroots” gatekeepers.  

“There is always a tension between what the Internet department is able to put out and what all the other departments want,” said Tim Tagaris, Ned Lamont’s Internet Director during the 2006 Senate and an aide in similar capacity to Chris Dodd’s campaign in ‘08.

Governing is not a campaign.  Tagaris and his ilk have never figured this out.  They remain obsessed in the tactical-speak of Rovian parroting that campaigns like Ned Lamont’s excelled at.

Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald offered an opening salvo by chastising Obama supporters for a willingness to rationalize their candidate’s position on FISA in a way that was “unhealthy in the extreme.” While at the Personal Democracy Forum, the Senator’s new-media guru, Joe Rospars, was forced to dispute the premise of an assertion that his candidate was “stand-offish” with the blogs.

Unhealthy in the extreme?  Spare me.  And by the way, any presidential candidate who doesn’t plan to pander to the “netroots” gatekeppers is always deemed “stand-offish”, whether they agree on policy or not. 

And as for the policy, we are talking about FISA here.  Not health care, not the war, not the economy, not gasoline prices, not anything the wider electorate cares about. We’re talking about FISA.  

If the “netroots” wants to throw a fit over this, that’s perfectly fine with me.  And fine with Barack, I suspect.  Go right ahead.  

Popularity: 5% [?]