Josh may used a poorly phrased passage when linking to Mark Schmitt's post, but Schmitt's post is more reasoned.

Can we please put to rest the idea that Ned Lamont's challenge to Senator Lieberman is a product of, or a wholly-owned subsidiary of, that thing called "the netroots." (Without, in so doing, disparaging or minimizing the netroots themselves.)

I thought Schmitt's post was insightful.

I think it is an obvious oversimplification if a blogger claims they have been kingmakers for the Lamont campaign. But can the MSM seriously say Lieberman would have had this much trouble were it not for the bloggers assisting citizens in areas such as debunking false narratives, championing an alternative such as Lamont(let's face it, if you just read the papers, Lamont was not that known until recently which helps him get nationwide funds). True, Lamont would have still made a go at it without bloggers. But his road to getting credibility as a serious challenger would have hit some roadblocks fighting against a big machine if bloggers weren't there fighting any mainstream narrative in favor of Lieberman.

I think because of the bloggers putting incessant pressure and presenting more coherent talking points that a few media figures were able to articulate how Lieberman wasn't really that tolerant of other views while he wanted understanding from the same people. Even with tghe bloggers presenting solid arguments face to face , some media guys like Chait can't come to terms with what's happening to Lieberman.

True , not enough people read blogs as of today. But when the blog readers talk to their friends, they will relay some of the talking points they get from these blogs. A counter narrative gets formed.

We are still not quite there, but to act like bloggers have been an insignifant force in the Lamont campaign is disingenuous on part of the MSM and a little too modest on part of the bloggers.

what is an "institutionalist"?
as in:
"Institutionalists like Josh Marshall"

I read his blog, I like his blog, and I wouldn't call him an "institutionalist", whatever that means.

Also the argument put forward by Josh's protege, in an article title "who is responsible for the Liberman Meltdown" was that bloggers have helped in the margins.  The other point is that Lieberman is melting down of his own accord, and that this is part of the reason Lamont is surging.  I agree with him.  

I think that where blogs have the biggest impact is being fire starters, enablers for effective but obscure candidates, the people who get out there first and expose an issue or candidate.  Once that candidate gets traction, they take off because of their own merits, not because the netroots are all powerful.  I think this is an extremely valuable role because cash poor, but great candidates can at least get in the front door.  The also provide a measure of logistical support, and can help push the news cycle.  That little boost is often the only thing a well positioned or good candidate needs to get off the ground.  But I disagree that Lamont is a creation purely of the blogs, which I think is the point Josh was making.  Lamont is his own man, he may have help from the Netroots, but in the end he is the one that has to win and the netroots can only do so much.

I also view the netroots as a rank and file phenonmena.  What is being said on the blogs is what everyone else has been saying in private around the country.  When it gets said on a blog, it gains form and substance.  People can start to rally, and that is a threat to the boss types because they can't control it, they need to be much more responsive to their constituents.  In effect, they have to stop being bosses, and start being leaders.

The elephant in the room that a lot of Democrats seemed determined to ignore.......

Just like JoeMo, Hillary's fingerprints are also on the most odius aspects of Bush's agenda.

So let's bring her down too.

Lieberman. Pundits. Blogger pundits. The whole lot of them.

Ha! Ha!

Liberal bloggers try to play God, and institute a Jihad against someone for crass political purposes.

We, the bloggers, have taken over. Nobody is reading the Moribund Stupid Media anymore. Now they are reading us.

Evangelism and conservatism don't mix. To pursue a higher goal at any cost is directly opposed to pursuit of cost effeciency and smaller government.

Conservatives will vote for democrats if the democrats can at least get behind cost control, and reform. For Pres. Bush to use his only veto to knock american scientific supremacy back to the stone age, its obvious that they're cooking the books on us.