No, They Really Weren’t Netrooting for Him (Progressive bloggers vs. Obama)

[onehandle]

What does Barack Obama’s victory in Iowa mean for the prominent activist bloggers in the Democratic Party who call themselves the “netroots” – many of whom have spent the past year either dismissing Obama’s candidacy (MyDD’s Jerome Armstrong scoffed at Obama’s “fake self-proclaimed ‘movement’” in June) or being actively hostile to it (a common enough sentiment that it led the DailyKos poster with the puckish sobriquet “Mark Warner Is God” to write a sarcastic post titled, “Barack Obama will eat your children”)?

“Here’s a dirty little secret that the liberal blogosphere will probably try to flush down the memory hole in the coming weeks – they didn’t like Barack Obama,” writes The Weekly Standard’s Dean Barnett. He later adds, “Obama incurred the wrath of the progressive blogosphere, and good God, a miracle occurred – he won anyway.” Barnett then writes:

--- Obama showed indifference or even hostility to their agenda. His success reveals the liberal bloggers’ lack of king-making ability. This particular emperor has no clothes. A progressive blog-reading audience of roughly 100,000 people has alternately enthralled and frightened the Democratic party for a couple of years now. Obama either saw that foolishness for what it was, or was sufficiently committed to his principles that he refused to pander. If he paid a price at the Iowa caucuses for this “gamble,” it was one he could afford. More likely, he paid no price, as the progressive blogosphere is deeply unrepresentative of the Democratic party rank and file. We learned that much last night. ---

In that June post at MyDD.com, Armstrong (the co-author, with Markos Moulitsas, of “Crashing the Gates: Netroots, Grassroots and the Rise of People-Powered Politics”) agreed with Barnett’s analysis. The netroots will not have “Obama’s back” when the news media turns on him, Armstrong said. Obama’s candidacy is “not a movement, but a candidate,” he wrote. Armstrong complained that Obama “never aligned with the existing movement that began with Dean in ‘02, swelled for Wesley Clark in ‘03, led Dean to the DNC Chair and propelled the Hackett and Lamont candidacies.”

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/no-they-really-werent-netrooting-for-him/

[PDittie]

1. Well, I'm still not netrooting for him

But I'll gladly and enthusiastically support him as the nominee if he wins (which I could never say about a certain other former front-runner).

I just don't think he's progressive enough, but at least he's acceptable.

[Demeter]

2. They Have Their Reasons Which Should Be Evaluated on Their Merits

and the reasons sound pretty darn good to me, as an adult with some life experience. That's why Obama gets the kid vote: kids like the sizzle, and have never realized that doesn't mean anything. They don't discriminate between junk food and sustenance.

[kurth]

3. Same reason they buy $200 sneakers

for their magic properties.