They like Hillary (43 percent in the Fox Poll), Gore (12 percent), Edwards (11 percent), and Kerry (10 percent). So that's 43 percent for Hillary vs. 33 percent for One Well Known Generic Dull Guy vs. about 12 percent for Some Other Not Quite So Well Known Generic Dull Guy. Those are very clear preferences: the Dems are for moderate establishment candidates and not for left wing radicals.

It's the so called netroots that no longer seems to be part of the Democratic party. Feingold wasn't even in the poll. So what are the netroots still doing in the party? They don't have any candidates!

If you think of the Bush administration as the 'Junta'; if you think Diebold means that all elections are now forever rigged in favor of the Republicans; if you think Hillary Clinton is nothing but a corporate shill--then why are you still in the Democratic party? The Democratic party does not believe any of the above and never will. Labor, suburban women, and minority voters are not followers of this paranoid point of view.

What is the point of being for the Democrats, if you don't think Democrats can get elected and wouldn't even do a good job if they could? You should be in another party, one that at least puts up candidates that say the same things you say.

The old idea that you had to stay with the Dems so that no anti-abortion judge could get on the Supreme Court--well, that's all water under the dam now, isn't it?

Realize that when Hillary polls at 43 percent in the Democratic party, that means millions of Democratic voters are for her, since this is out of the 50 million or so people who voted for Democrats in 2004. And millions of OTHER Democrats, according to the poll above, like someone else not much different from Hillary. So if you hate Hillary, where do you fit in within the Democratic party? Answer: you don't. The Democratic party LIKES Hillary.

When almost all the people here are lining up almost 100 percent against Hillary, that means they are not seeing eye to eye with millions of Democratic voters and that millions of Democratic voters are likewise not seeing eye to eye with them. So why are people here still in the Democratic party? There is no longer any communication between the so called netroots and the Democrats. That spells D.I.V.O.R.C.E., at least to me.

The 'netroots' should just split. Get out of the Democratic party. Go to a third party or form your own. Salon could lead the way--put up an editorial saying, "Bye, Bye, Dems, We Can No Longer Support You." Then at least things would be clear: the netroots would be for one party and one set of things and the Democrats would be an entirely different party standing for something else. The sooner all of this can get settled, the better it will be for all concerned.

What has this over-privileged punk accomplished, exactly? If he has an argument to make, why doesn't he make it to the voters instead of hanging up bullshit banners?

I really don't think that Ghandi, MLK, and Rosa Parks were just oldtime stunt players at the X-treme Politics Games. They actually stood for principles and somehow their actions communicated their principles. Climbing skyscrapers only communicates the principle of punks doing what they wanna to do because they feel like it and have the money and time to spend on it.

What does he stand for? You can't say, really. You can't get anything from his actions except that he likes to play X-treme Politics.

He doesn't like nukes, it seems. So what does he want to do about it? He wants to hang up a banner on the side of a building. The end result is absolutely nothing. The public isn't more informed or more empowered just because they saw a stupid banner on the Sears Tower saying down on nuclear power. Any real corporate masters must be laughing their asses off.

Again, think of Ghandi, MLK, and Rosa Parks. They weren't just protesters, they themselves were actively disenfranchised. In contrast, this punk is NOT disenfranchised. This punk is NOT unable to write a coherent article explaining his positions on nuclear power and what the public might do about it. The punk is NOT unable to support political candidates and put forth political proposals.

But he simply doesn't want to engage in democracy. He just wants to do protesting stunts. He even went to protester camp! His kind of X-treme 'protesting' is no different from going on adventure treks in the Himalayas. It's simply just another leisure pursuit of over privileged yuppies with more time and money than they know what to do with.

Really, the corporate masters might do very well to finance his stunt protests. If he's saying anything at all, he's saying that democracy is futile and meaningless, which is exactly the message that corporate masters everywhere could devoutly wish the public to believe.

...Democratic primary voters did. And Gore and Kerry both got around 50 percent of the vote, better than any Democratic presidential nominee in years. Gore in fact got a majority of the votes.

Nader got what? one or two percent. So much for the left wing in America. He was trying for three percent to qualify as a major party, but couldn't make it.

I never said that the netroots were 'out of touch.' I only pointed out that there's a huge difference between the netroots and Democratic primary voters. The netroots stand for one thing; Democratic primary voters apparently stand for something else. Go look at the polls again. 43 percent of Democrats like Hillary. Nobody here likes her. The gulf is vast and obvious.