They better not use words like ideology

Semi-lengthy review of the Kos/Armstrong book 'Crashing the Gate' that articulates a coming schism in the "progressive blogsphere." It's worth reading the whole thing. Especially when the author, RJ Eskow, makes the point that the party dismisses so-called "special interest groups" at their peril.

But here are my responses to a couple of other key paragraphs. As Eskow defines the division:

One side would provide technical and consulting support to Democratic candidates that represent a wide ideological swath - and, not incidentally, would like to be the Party's new leadership. The other side, while having remained true to the Party by and large for many years, now stands ready to abandon it if need be - especially on the national level, should a right-leaning candidate (or one cynically assuming a right-wing pose) lead the ticket in 2008.

I find I am steadfastly in the latter camp. But I defend myself by asserting I've been forced to this position. By John Kerry, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, and even Bill Clinton. No matter how much George W. Bush's performance has added to Clinton's stature, I don't forget what a political animal, not to say whore, he is.

I have seen what happens when Democrats try to appeal to the lowest common demoninator, and it ain't pretty. I'm not voting for a Democrat unless one shows up.

Another interpretation of Dean's candidacy can be taken as a direct refutation of the technocratic approach. Maybe Dean's campaign caught fire because of its ideology, and ultimately failed because of its dependence on the netroots. If that's the case, then forget all this new-tech stuff - be true to the 'Democratic wing of the Democratic Party' and you'll be in great shape. It's true that Dean raised a lot of money via the Internet, but maybe he started concentrating more on money (and technology) and less on message, to his own detriment.

For what it's worth, it's my feeling that we should be wary of any interpretation of Dean's losses that doesn't acknowlege the fact that he got well and royally fucked by the media. If you think you know what really happened on that night in Iowa, read this.

I wasn't as excited about his campaign as some of the "netroots" were. But he'll always have the distinction of being the only serious candidate to be right early about the Iraq war. And currently, he's just about the only biggie in the party that I can stand to see speak.

Which is probably why the rest of the party seems to distance themselves from him; they're still more interested it "having each other's backs" than in what "the base" wants. For example, see Ted Kennedy saying why sure, yup yup yup, he'd be glad to support John Kerry in 2008.