I didn't see a page counter, but they are up to 3.3 million members, and about 250,000 volunteers. Funny thing about the web-reality. You can manipulate it for a short time, but after a while, if the net roots don't grow, you don't have them. This is obvious to those who keep track, but it has always been more difficult to counter an existing idea than to create a new one.

On a somewhat unrelated note, the Onion's coverage of the Giuliani candidacy:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/giuliani_to_run_for_president_of_9

It's dawn.

And 6-deer are outside doingness the darndest to feed on apple tree branches. Dear me, I'd have to be gagged, bound, and dragged to feed on a site like Institutor's Blogging Warrior's to figure out the bell-curves. The proof text are hard to live in conformity with, if we want uniformity substance.

"Vinegar Cozies," (whatever) is confusion. It's a sprinkle of 'vinegar' over tons of white sugar? When I read right-winger information, if I had wings, I'd feel defunct and broken. I am not saying anything less than reverent and respecful of jokes, I hope. A serious bird outside has both wings expanding, then contracting, then the birds wingspan branches outward so wide 'as if' to seem to float in a wind current, balanced, and perfectly coordinated in a soaring flight of Freedom. Freedom! Yea, Free. The sky is misty blue with pink hues in the lower cloud formations. It's a coldish day with anticipated 50-mile per hour gust? I'm outside soon too.

The right-wing disciples seem, IMHO, to have a broken right-wing-site. Glenn, I need to be bound, dragged, or punted like a football there? I refuse to be gagged. I thank you for all the proper grammer lessons here in the Salon. Thanks, but because of right-wink-weak belly, I'd rather watch those other strong wing-birds that flock together, but, please...NO...I'd rather drink a 6-pack of vinegar with a teaspoon of sugar! Thanks for You Read 'um ring-winger's, okay. You do the brave warrior work there, okay? Me weary and feel I'd scoop down and break a wing in search for a field mouse in the snow?

Dear deer, stay all day. I'll put out more grain for you...deer walk in snow with a beautiful balance. They amaze me.

Glenn I think you underestimate your own popularity. Now that *you* have linked to Victory Caucus, the numbers are bumping up again and they can claim another record surge of pro-war sentiment, which the MSM will once again dutifully report. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if today is their single biggest day of traffic since the site was created. Actually I would be shocked if it isn't.

I don't have time to write a long, impassioned explanation of the limited value of incomplete analysis to prove a marketing point, so I will just use some of my favorite quotes to explain the value of the Victory Caucus claims:

"There are lies; then there are damned lies; and then, there are statistics."

"If you should but give me a small enough sample base, and a shifting point of reference, I could prove the world."

"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of."

"Why, sometimes I believe six impossible things before breakfast."

And speaking of breakfast, I have to go eat some.

I want victory and a peaceful, thriving democracy in Iraq that spreads throughout all Muslim/Arab lands.

I also want to be the starting shortstop for the Saint Louis Cardinals.

If not for the electoral college, there would be about half a million people alive today instead of dead.

Mr. Greenwald's stilted interpretation in this piece reflects a lack of fairness, and balance. I would suggest that he look again at Mr. Cheney's analysis of upcoming changes in British deployment in the southern Iraq region. Mr. Greenwald notes the British drawdown in his post, but he does not connect the dots. No doubt this is because Mr. Greenwald is not a professional journalist, but merely a blogger. The rapid decline in visits and page views at pro-war sites is good news, and in fact proves the opposite of Greenwald's thesis--victory of the 'victory caucus' message . It is clear that the message there is so potent, so powerful, that victory was achieved with a miraculously small number of actual visitors.

Those who oppose the war are the ready to be institutionalized kook fringe. It's a crazy way of looking at the world.

Regarding the stats Greenwald had noted for the Victory Caucus site, is there a way to compare those stats to the daily stats of those sites that promote phased withdrawals? That should be the true measurement: the sustained interest of those who want our troops home compared to the surgists who want to waste our troops in an unwelcomed land.

Meanwhile, the SiteMeter numbers for Eschaton have averaged over 100,000 visits a day (http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s13atrios) for years now. And Eschaton is small potatoes compared to DailyKos.

Odd isn't it, how the two seem to mirror each other: a lot of fanfare and traffic, all of which ultimately proves hollow and meaningless?

But that seems to be the Bush SOP these days.

At some point, will war supporters accept the reality that they are in a small and shrinking fringe group? Is there any event or any data at all that can make them come to terms with that reality?

I'll take "Not on Your Life" for $1000, Alex.

I was wondering whether anyone else noticed the irony in the "surge" of visitors at the pro-surge sites.

As Glenn has documented before, especially with respect to Bill Kristol's vitriol, the only strategies that seem to have any resonance with these types are ones that include, and are founded upon, the short term application of dramatic and brutal forces - it is kind of like the MTV "Short Attention Span Theater" generation version of policy design and implementation.

I visited Victory Caucus after reading about it; I'm sure lots of other non-conservatives did as well. Page hits alone are no proof of support. So even the 12,000 daily average can't be counted as the true number of supporters.