Matt

It's Debra, the person at the desk next to you. I have had to return to put out fires at work.

I was the one who had more Lieberman supporters than you did when I called. I have done thousands of hours of phonebanking, run phone banks, canvassed and I can often sense the way things are going.  I wasn't feeling good. I was concerned by something that was being said to me by all the waverers.

I think Joe finally had an effective ad. The  radio ad talking about Ned's membership in the Greenwich country club.  People treated it like it was only about the African American voter, but it also seems to have had an effect on some progressives and others who are concerned by the effect money has on politics.

All my waverers,  who would talk to me,  asked about Ned and his background because they were concerned that his money and his business interests would predispose him toward money and not everyday voters ---- the poor, the  middle class.    

This is the refrain...It's politicians --- they're all the same...it doesn't matter who's in charge..... I was sensing  that it was like the end of the general in 2004 ---in a climate of fear and uncertainty --- it's better the devil you know that the devil you don't know, especially if you have been able to build some doubts about the new guy. I am concerned that the fence sitters and the ones who aren't adamantly for Ned may be slipping back over that fence to Joe.

I think the campaign needs to counter this feeling that Ned is too wealthy, born to wealth, to understand everyday people's lives.  As you and I discussed one way is to let people know from Social Security privatization to trade agreeements and job loss, to voting for the oil giants and not the voters of Conn that Joe's policies, attitudes and vote show that he's more in the hand of the special intersts than Ned.  

They need to highlight Ned concerns, compassion  and actual policies to undercut the DOUBT that these voters have about him.  

I think they need to cut a radio spot about this today and run it now.

Someone I hope is telling Tom Swan

Matt said:
There are two streams in play...Both have their media streams, pools of money, ideology, ground troops, and desired way of running the country.  Clearly, the new politics is ascendant...

Well said.  Needless to say, a priority should be to gather and synthesize lessons/insights related to this latest phase of the shift and what steps/tools/strategies can strengthen, accelerate and expand it, and to communicate that message throughout the netroots, and integrate it with lessons being learned elsewhere...and through that process, implement next-generation strategies and tools in November and beyond.  Just like in the web/tech world, I think the "development" cycle is starting to shrink in the netroots' development, which is a testament to its growing potency.

One of the things I love about the netroots is how many smart, energetic and inspired people are involved and how the networking and mobilization of that intelligence, creativity and energy keeps accelerating in its potency...self-organizing humanity at work (and play) is an awesome thing to behold.  It seems that a strong foundation has been established and is self-reinforcing to a large degree. That's important.

We are moving into a new era whose long-term implications are vast (and potentially very hopeful) and hard to imagine, but whose next-steps are always right in front of us and gratifying in and of themselves, which is important, since we won't "win" every battle and will take some hits along the way.  After scanning the Sunday morning shows via DVR, it was more clear than ever that many of the pundits can't perceive the unfolding reality beyond the veil of their entrenched interpretive frames and identities.  

Of course their "old" world, as Matt's comment suggests, has its own reinforcing dynamics.  But as Sterling noted in a recent Truthout piece, the combination of Internet-based and on the ground person-to-person connection-networking-cooperation-mobili zation is a powerful and positive force.  I'd argue that it fundamentally supports life and human development and that the "old" dynamic fundamentally degrades life and human development (see the signs everywhere you look).  That means we grow and they decline.  The timing of the shift and the extent of "collateral" damage associated with the decline is what remains to be seen. Hopefully we can accelerate the first and minimize the second.

I think the Cory Booker "out of the closet" remark is really unfortunate.  This is just a reprise of the slime that Sharpe James throw out in 2002.  

If Cory Booker can help turn around Newark, that would be great for the Democratic party.  We need to have successful urban executive politicians.  It is not helpful that Guiliani (and to a lesser extent Bloomburg) has the reputation as the only politician who could restore order in NYC.  

I thought Booker was the anti-machine candidate in the Newark race.  Has he cozied up to the machine since his election?  I mean, WTF?