By the same token, we should not be too quick to completely discount the noble spirits that attempt to help in whatever way they can. An alliance of the disenfranchised, combining all knowable tactics of dissent, will be more powerful than factions of revolt. -- Patrick Morgan

No? We shouldn't? I have not been "quick" about anything. I have watched this farce for years and the more I see of it, the less noble it appears.

Have you considered that the internets and the netroots (as it is today) are actually an impediment to real activism? I am more than willing to grant that it is a great system for information dissemination, recording and countering the out-and-out lies of the establishment and for raising money for candidates but, when it comes to direct action, it is my belief that it acts as a ineffectual substitute and actually inhibits activism which might actually accomplish something.

Instead of leaders we have bloggers, who are natural leaders though, for the most part, they do not and will not acknowledge that fact. They are in a position to be the modern day organizers for real, direct action but for various reasons, not the least of which is, in some cases, wanting to appear "serious" so as to gain credibility and leave open the possibility of becoming part of the establishment themselves, they choose not to assume that natural mantle. Their readers (followers) are content that they are doing all they can by writing letters, making phone calls and, recently, throwing money at the problem. They are content even though nothing of significance is has been accomplished through those tactics. Over and over they are disappointed by their "representatives" lack of responsiveness...disappointed at their lack of "will to do the right thing"and yet these internet activists continue to do bang their collective head against the wall.

To these bloggers and their followers nothing is ever serious enough that it calls for direct action and, from what I have seen, nothing ever will be. Not lying us into a preemptive war of aggression, not the systematic dismantling of the constitution, not the Patriot Act, not torture, not the rape of the treasury, etc. etc. and certainly not illegal domestic spying.

And so it goes...

I don't know who said this but

Putting pressure on individual Democrats is a certain losing strategy.

It can be a risky strategy depending on the individual Democrat and his or her local political environment viv a vis Republicans. It is not a "losing" strategy because your objective in doing this isn't necessarily winning an election or defeating a Republican. You are pressuring a Democrat. It works better when you can field a primary candidate with a good chance of threatening him simultaneously. -- LWM

because that answer doesn't address the larger issue.

Did you even read the entire post you are quoting from? In an effort to maintain the status quo you are either, once again, talking out of both sides of you mouth or you are entirely incapable of grasping the larger point (I am betting the latter). The overriding point of the comment was completely correct. Put simply, it is a losing strategy because you can never "catch-up." You can never put enough pressure on enough bad democrats in enough districts. You are never going to make the wholesale changes necessary. It is a losing strategy because the Dem leadership (no matter who it is) will...

"simply calibrate votes to make sure the supporters of telecom immunity come from safe districts etc., so to campaign against individual Democrats is pretty much wasted energy. The only realistic option we have is to punish the party as a whole. It will have to cost them the presidency. The stupidest thing we could do now is to hesitate and give Democrats the benefit of the doubt as they embrace authoritarianism... (snip) If we do this, we'll simply end up with a long-term authoritarian consensus between the two major parties. This is the breaking point, the point where we'll have to switch allegiances. -- notveryhappy

Makes perfect sense to me. It makes perfect sense to anyone committed to long term, real and lasting change. This time it is telecom immunity but next time, as it has been in the past, it could be any of a myriad of American people and constitution screwing "compromises." In fact, I think that notveryhappy was being generous. I see zero evidence to counter the belief that we are indeed already living "with a long-term authoritarian consensus between the two major parties." I know it flies in the face of your unassailable "more and better democrats" plan LWM and thus is causing your head to explode, but it makes a lot of sense to those of us that can actually see the problem and are looking for a plan for real, lasting change instead of the one-step forward, two-steps back, gamed-system enabling, approach.

It's funny, we are infuriated with Democratic politicians who, out of misguided political calculation, won't stand up against the confirmation of an attorney general who can't be brought to admit that waterboarding is torture; we are infuriated with politicians who won't, out of misguided political calculation, stand up against the erosion of fundamental liberties and constitutional protections. But then we ourselves, because we "care [...] that John McCain not be the next president," are prepared to support, out of similarly misguided political calculation, a presidential candidate who won't stand up for these things (as people have noted, Obama could end this nonsense). Seems to me that we are set to make the same mistake as the politicians we are so angry with. -- notveryhappy

Completely agree. I will be writing in Kucinich regardless but I was, otherwise, going to sit this one out. If Obama doesn't come out swinging soon I think I may change my mind and actively campaign against him.