I don't like it when the watchdog gets too friendly with the people he is supposed to be watching.

and avoided confronting Kos over some of his more pointed statements.  Kos did inexplicably admonish Ford to "stop attacking Democrats", when anyone spending time at the dKos site can view Kos's own diary declaring all the Dems who voted for the FISA bill "cowards".  Way to prop up the big tent, Kos.

I don't think it would be positive.  It's much better to have your attack dogs untethered.  Obviously liberals have much higher standards, but look at how well it's served the GOP to have their swift boaters doing their dirty work for them while the people on the ballots maintain plausible deniability.  I want Kos and others to be able to give it to us straight without worrying about how their words will impact Sen. Blank's poll ratings.

DailyKos does serve an important watchdog function, and many of the diaries there are terrific and thought provoking, but many other diaries are rabidly and ideologically strident and full of attacks on everyone who doesn't happen to be as leftie as they are. 

Kos is hard to get your arms around.  It is the front page where Kos and selected folks post.  It is the recommended diaries where the community selections come into the spotlight.  It is your hot list of folks you want to read.  It is the Dairy rescue. Above all, it is lots of comments from anyone and everyone. 

Yes, there are raved partisans posting diaries but their diaries seldom make it to the recommended lists.  This is the price you pay for a community with an open membership.

community when I haven't said anything against the concept?  I'm not an idiot.  I was talking about why a merger with the DLC would be a bad idea.  Oh, and not every post on Kos's front page is reasoned or analytical.  Sometimes they're flat out personal attacks on loyal Democrats and progressives for alleged "betrayals" and "cowardice". 

I don't think this is about disarming when it comes to campaigning against Republicans, like the Swift Boat analogy you use.  I think their intent was to maybe mitigate some of the infighting within the party.  I also didn't think it was a call to stop challenging each other's ideas either; so, I don't see where this would silence critical thinking about various issues.

As you may have noticed on the Republican side, powerful voices in their own party have worked to silence those who disagree with them.  And even in cases where they could choose to field a viable candidate, if the candidate doesn't meet a certain conservative social agenda or anti-tax agenda, then they face a fairly nasty primary challenge.  I don't think this has lead to a better Republican Party, it has just made it more insular.  I don't think that is a winning strategy in the long term.  And the Democratic Party would do well to heed the lessons of our Republican brothers and sisters.

I don't know that much about Markos or Dailykos. And I thought people taking every word of his as golden was too heroworshipy.  But I must say I think his article responding to Ford and O'Malley was very much needed.  I read Ford's peice and I came away with the feeling that the Washington Post should actually give space to those who get their point across in the first sentence. Yes the center is where we should be, but Ronald Reagan's center and Robert Kennedy's center are two different things, and I feel Ford's lot (DLC) are unwilling to take that next step and state what their version of the center is because that might alienate voters.  Markos said this is what we stand for, you can either stay in the kitchen or get out of it.
Therefore I think merging the two (DLC and Kos) would be a bad idea because the ideas are dead on arrival at DLC, Kos, is all about the grassroots ideas and it would be a big sell out on Kos's part.

My problem with the DLC is not that they often have centrist positions.  I have a moderate viewpoint on some issues myself.  It's the way they are constantly stabbing liberal Democrats in the back that really irks me.  And it's also how they claim to stand up for progressive values, and then go ahead and advocate for the Iraq War or side with corporate interests over worker's issues over and over again.  For those reasons and more, I was rooting for Markos this morning.  The best message he had was that Democrats should be allowed to stand up and be PROUD to be a Democrat, like the way Jim Webb did in his 2006 Senate run.  He started a new Democratic brand, the Virginian Democratic brand, if you will, and stood proudly for that.  Even if liberal Dems disagreed with him on an issue, they knew he was a genuine Democrat who stood for core progressive values.  It doesn't feel like that with the DLC.  Did anyone get deja vu when Ford said there was "anti-Jewish" sentiment on DailyKos?  Didn't Allen call RK that when he started getting annoyed with how well the blogs were undermining his campaign?

I don't disagree with the others that Markos has his excesses, too.  But many of us contribute to the DailyKos blog, and quite frankly, we're in bigger numbers than Kos, and he knows it.  I did meeting him last weekend, and found him perfectly amiable.  I think the netroots are the future, and like the presidential candidates, I hope the DLC learns this, and instead of bashing us, joins in the discussion ... on the blogs.

way some Dems kowtow to the money interests.  A lot of Dems voted for the misnomered Consumer Protection and Bankruptcy Reform bill a couple of years back.  And for all their talk about health care reform they don't seem to be trying too hard to fix the problem.

I thought they both made a lot of good points, back and forth, better than any supposed first tier Republican that I've heard on that show, or any other.  They may disagree on some issues, but they raised the intelligence level on the show by quite a margin.  Usually, it's just a rehash of talking points.

And what's with putting David Gregory in as host?  What's the matter, Rove couldn't come rap on Sunday morning?  Gregory has given up any pretense of objectivity, and is out of his league on that show.  (For that matter, so is the regular shill.)

And this is why: not all of us have the time to meet with a lot of people in person and do face-to-face grassroots activism. Many of us have long commutes, so we can never make it to meetings. Many of us have small children, and we cannot bring them with us or we must spend time with them to raise them.

The netroots allows us to have a much more active civic life than we had before it. One can share information a lot faster, and one can connect with liked-minded individuals to work together and make a difference through letter writing campaigns or letters to the editor... and of course, voting.

And the netroots promote people to eventually, when they can, to show up at events and have some face-to-face time, which is a great experience and very important as well. As soon as the conditions of people change, they will participate face to face. The netroots will eventually feed the grassroots.

 

Markos should have his head examined.

The DLC desires the merger to smooth the way for Hillary to announce the support of the netroots.

The Democratic Leadership Council was the major Democratic booster organization for the attack on Iraq. Without the political support of the DLC types, including Hillary Clinton, Bush could not have attacked Iraq. In this way, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, and the rest of the DLC types were war enablers. They must share the responsibilities for the Iraq War's damages done to America and the loss of lives and the maiming.

Go to DLC.org, and read its policy positions on the "War on Terror". The DLC types are true believers in the WOT, as well as the ridiculous Democracy Promotion policy.

Moreover, if you further review other DLC policies, you might come to the conclusion that DLC types are little more than neoconservatives played lightly.

Markos has gone too far by suggesting a merger with the notorious DLC.