Obama talks to Netroots Nation — by (echo-enhanced) video.

Much of this is the story of a little boy who uses medication that costs $3,000 a day:

"It's like the president's not our boyfriend anymore."

For the netroots, it's like waking up in a cold tent alone, instead of in his arms. Well, you shouldn't have drunk all that Kool-Aid.

Mickey Kaus says: "Weiner is a victim of web-driven macho partisan cocooning."

That sounded like a great string of words, but then I realized I couldn't grasp the concept. I had to say it out loud. Victim. I get it. Weiner is the victim. Okay. Web-driven macho partisan cocooning. Web-driven partisan cocooning I would get. But what was macho about it? Didn't Weiner leave when he got double-teamed by Nancy and Debbie. And then Obama stuck his toe in and said what he would do if it were him. That wasn't macho. Then a porn star delivered the final blow. Maybe that was macho.

But, reading on, I see that the cocoon Mickey is talking about is Weiner's lefty friends on the web, including Daily Kos people and the lady-fans Weiner found on-line. They made him feel so powerful that he made mistakes. But I'm back to the same question. What's macho about that? Kaus thinks that Weiner thought that the lefty bloggers would fight for him. And that's macho... why?

Sorry. A middle-aged politician sitting at home masturbating because young women thought he was cool when he yelled at that guy that one time is not macho. And it doesn't get more macho because he's counting on lefty dweebs with blogs to type out a defense for you.

"Is there anything cooler than Al Franken at Netroots Nation?"

No, there is nothing cooler than Al Franken at Netroots Nation. It is absolutely the coolest thing known to mankind.

Liberals out-organized conservatives in blogging, but conservatives are doing better with Twitter.

Or so the liberal bloggers say.

“Conservatives are always good at pushing that one concise message. The death panels are easy to tweet. The explanation for why there are no death panels and making that explanation takes much more explanation. You can’t do that on Twitter.”

So their ideas are sophisticated and fact-based, while their opponents throw around ideology and the fantasy that supports it. That's the politico's delusion, in a nutshell. But I've got to laugh at the way blogging now represents the in-depth development of ideas. I'm just too deep for Twitter. I'm a blogger. LOL.

***

That politico's delusion reminds me of Skeptoid's explanation for why he won't debate pseudoscientists anymore:

The pseudoscientist ... can say whatever he wants. If compelling rhetoric would benefit from any given argument, he can always make that argument. Pseudosciences have typically been designed around compelling rhetorical arguments. The facts of science, on the other hand, rarely happen to coincide with the best possible logic argument. Having the facts on your side is not an advantage, it's a limitation; and it's a limitation that's very dangerous to the cause of science should you throw it onto the debate floor.

"They became a Wurlitzer for Barack Obama..."

Big Tent Democrat on why the netroots don't get respect.

IN THE COMMENTS: rhhardin said:

Obama needs the talent to play the Wurlitzer for the turn of phrase to work.

I'd go with iPod.

Obama played the nutroots like an iPod.

Bissage said:

I want respect.

So I’m not going to post a stupid joke about an enormous organ.

Too obvious.

"I used to swear a lot. I like swearing, and I love reading people who do it well."

Oh, lord — is that swearing? — I'm going with a second Kevin Drum quote this morning — and a second post traced to the netroots convention. But anyway, this is a different subject: The use of rough language among friends and in blogging that used to be written in the style of talking to your friends but is now written with the intent to reach the whole political world, which isn't going to listen properly if you talk like that. Was the bad language ever good, and if it was, what have we lost? We do still want blogging to sound like the way we'd talk to friends, don't we?

Gore!

Netroots!

"The harmony that existed between MyDD and Kos since the birth of the Netroots no longer exists today."

Writes TNR's Dana Goldstein. I guess I don't read the lefty blogs enough. I had no idea. Anyway, it seems that back in February, Jerome Armstrong (My DD) came out for Hillary Clinton, and the commenters on both sites have been fighting ever since. And then there was that "writers strike" by the pro-Clinton diarists at Kos.

After announcing her departure from the site, [strike leader] Alegre was the subject of insults by dozens of commenters.

Dozens! Ooh. Ouch.

[Kos's Markos] Moulitsas fumed on the site's front page, "People expect me to give a damn that a bunch of whiny posters 'go on strike' and leave in a huff. When I don't give a damn, people get angry that their expectations aren't being met." Of course, characterizing Clinton supporters, especially female Clinton supporters, as "whiny," didn't sit well with many. A Maryland mother of two in her mid-40s, Alegre said she won't publicize her real name because she fears harassment from anti-Clinton bloggers and commenters....

The Netroots has always had a hostile streak, and it's natural that as the Democratic Party and the Netroots themselves began to wield more power, some of that hostility would be directed inwards. Its denizens are also a relatively homogeneous bunch--largely male, middle-aged, college-educated, and upper middle class.

Really? Upper middle class? I can believe there are more men than women, but enough to make it "relatively homogenous"?

Goldstein notes that Moulitsas and Armstrong are still pals and that "For Armstrong and Kos, with the primary all but over, everything is approaching normal again." But Goldstein's subtitle is: "Will the fight between Daily Kos and MyDD have longer lasting implications than its founders realize?" He seems to be driving at the notion that those privileged males are missing something, which he tries to convey by ending the piece with a quote from Alegre:

"I've always gotten the impression there that women didn't really hold a high place in their heart," Alegre says, referring to the male leaders of Daily Kos. "I'd go back. But I don't know if I'd be welcome after the stink I caused."

Eh. I'm left feeling that Kos and MyDD don't really have a problem at all. There were 2 strong candidates and people got excited about them and blew off some steam. Big deal.

The writers strike was a dumb idea that left its leader without a high platform to blog from. Now, she has her regrets. Sorry, that's not the big theme she wants it to be. If Alegre deserved the elevation she once had on that platform that Kos built, she ought to be able to blog independently now instead of whining — yeah, whining — about not having a place in his heart.

Suddenly — and sensibly — the Dems want on Fox News.

Netroots irked.

ADDED: And I should say that I think Hillary Clinton looked great sparring with Bill O'Reilly. It worked out really well — for both of them. It's insane for Democrats not to try to reach all the people who watch Fox News. And you only look weak avoiding it. Now, the netroots look foolish bitching about it — but all their muscle-flexing and bragging about power and vengeful foot-stamping has always looked foolish.

Dear al Qaeda: Why haven't you attacked the United States again?

Ayman al-Zawahri is taking questions on line.

Some of those posting questions sound worried: Does al-Qaida have a long-term strategy?...

Many appear frustrated that al-Qaida is not doing more.

"When we will see the men of al-Qaida waging holy war in Palestine? Because frankly our situation has become very bad," writes one, with the username "Seeking the Path."...

"I think they (al-Qaida's leaders) were aware (that) ... everyone was no longer buying into the propaganda about how great they are," said Jeremy Binnie of Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Center. "This was put forward as a propaganda exercise and to make it look like they are responding to these concerns."

Politics is not easy for the terrorists. It's not enough just to blow things up. You have to also explain why you aren't blowing more things up.

"Do you have a body that studies events and reviews them to correct mistakes and assess them?"

Let's have some accountability.

ADDED: An emailed comment:

If only the process was more transparent. Then people would feel that they had more of a say in which terrorists were in charge.

The terror netroots are all about wanting to see more things get blown up, but they don't actually do anything but make noise. Chickenvultures, that's all they are. A serious terrorist leader would be able to get them in line, and be generally more supportive of jihad, rather than undermining it.

And really, al Qaeda's entire campaign is built on what they did on 9-11. Nevermind that prior to that, they were considered very polarizing figures. The truth is, they were in the right place, at the right time, and they've been playing that for all it's worth. And what have they done since? Been using that rep to garner big
contributions.

Hillary's lead proves the netroots are ineffectual.

Says David Brooks:

... Clinton has established this lead by repudiating the netroots theory of politics. ... [T]he netroots emerged in part in rebellion against Clintonian politics. They wanted bold colors and slashing attacks. They didn’t want their politicians catering to what Markos Moulitsas Zúniga of the Daily Kos calls “the mythical middle.”...

The fact is, many Democratic politicians privately detest the netroots’ self-righteousness and bullying. They also know their party has a historic opportunity to pick up disaffected Republicans and moderates, so long as they don’t blow it by drifting into cuckoo land. They also know that a Democratic president is going to face challenges from Iran and elsewhere that are going to require hard-line, hawkish responses.

I'm ready to vote for her if she maintains that hawkish edge. That is, I think there's a hawkish edge in there somewhere, since she going to so much trouble to hide what must be it.

Brooks ends by saying that the netroots' "influence is surprisingly marginal, even among candidates for whom you’d think it would be strong." Evidence? "Several weeks ago, I asked John Edwards what the YearlyKos event was like. He couldn’t remember which event I was talking about, and looked over to an aide for help."

Oh, come on now. He looked over at his aide because he couldn't remember it? I'm thinking he looked over at his aide because he knows it's a tricky matter -- it helps him and it threatens to hurt him -- so he's got to play it just right. Seeming not to be closely connected to them is crucial to getting the best leverage out of their support. Edwards isn't dumb and confused. He's smart and strategic.

AND: Matt Yglesias is right about this, I think:

... David Brooks has decided to celebrate his liberation from TimesSelect by penning a column seemingly designed to get tons of liberal bloggers to link to him by pissing us off.

AND: Andrew Sullivan takes umbrage:

The conservative Washington Establishment is swooning for Hillary for a reason. The reason is an accommodation with what they see as the next source of power (surprise!); and the desire to see George W. Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq legitimated and extended by a Democratic president (genuine surprise). Hillary is Bush's ticket to posterity. On Iraq, she will be his legacy.

Yes, as noted earlier today, Hillary is already consulting with Bush about the war.

... They may oppose one another; but they respect each other as equals in the neo-monarchy that is the current presidency. And so elite conservatives are falling over themselves to embrace a new Queen Hillary, with an empire reaching across Mesopotamia, a recently deposed court just waiting to return to the salons of DC, a consort happy to be co-president for another four years, and a back-channel to the other royal family. She'll even have more powers than Clinton I, because Cheney has given her back various royal prerogatives: arrests without charges, torture, wire-tapping, and spy-ware on your Expedia account. Only the coronation awaits.

Why all the monarchy imagery? Anyone who wins the presidency acquires great power. Sullivan has found a way to repeat what we already know: He doesn't like Bush's ideas about the scope of presidential power and the way to use it, and he thinks Hillary Clinton is too much like Bush. But going on about "Queen Hillary" has a bit of a sexist edge to it, especially when Sullivan has chosen to illustrate his post with a photo of a sculpted bust of Hillary, which includes bared breasts. (Yes, I know the bust is supposed to call to mind grandiose Roman emperors who were depicted this way. Nevertheless.)

"So here’s the rule. You never repeat right wing talking points to attack your own, ever. You never enter that echo chamber as a participant. Ever."

"You never give them a hammer to beat the left with. Just. Don’t. Do. It."

Jane Hamsher adopts a scary, weird tone of voice and tells Elizabeth Edwards what to do. She'd better show some respect for MoveOn.

They're out there on the left so you can look “moderate.” They’re saying what needs to be said, opening the conversation up so John Edwards isn’t considered the left-wing fringe loon that nobody should listen to.

Which seems like it should be exactly the reason why John Edwards needs to make his independence from them clear, but according to Hamsher's tirade, this is why Edwards can never criticize the netroots. Well, this is Hamsher jockeying for netroots power.

[W]e’re not very happy when the people we defend turn around and start kicking them...

We love you. We want to love you.

Knock it off.

I'm sure she realizes that since Edwards is using them because they are useful that he will only use them to the extent they are useful. He wants power, not true love. And so does she, obviously.