Jerome and Matt, what's your view of the blogosphere in Missouri?

There is a tendency among losing factions to adopt some of the tactics of the enemy, and there is a frequent urge amongst victors to go beyond conquest and own the very cultural space of the subdued.  Progressives are now faced with both a fresh set of triumphs over, and an overwhelming entrenchment of, conservativism.  
It was the smug clarity of purpose and the absolute lockstep conformity of the Republican Party that spured me to action.  Tactically, like on the local level, there will be times when a zelous message or even unyielding partisanship will be the absolute best option, but to adopt them as national strategies, and without room for innovation, would destroy me, and disillusion a generation.  

I couldn't disagree with your frame more. You're conflating infrastructure scale with "establishment"--an obviously pejorative term, and I'm not even sure what you mean by that term.
As Matt and Chris have both written about, the previous generation of progressives have left us with little or no infrastructure to sustain ourselves or grow our movement. A critical piece of that infrastructure is the ability to take on DINOs who rot the party's ideology and values from within. We will not be able to move the political debate in a progressive direction with a group of representatives in our midst who are willing to turn us and our issues into fringe-leftist strawmen and declare themselves "moderates."
I disagree with your dismissal of Steve Rosenthal as an establishment figure. Just because someone has been very sucessful in "the establishment" doesn't mean he or she should be forever discredited from joining into an effort to scale up grassroots political power. What about all those bloggers who are being hired right now to work on political campaigns? Are we to assume that they have now been assimulated into the establishment borg and are lost to us forever.
The problem here was that there were some groups included who shouldn't have been there in the first place. It's obvious to me that groups like the trial lawyers and even SEIU are not the appropriate partners for a project like this, since they both may be compromised by having lobbying business before the DINOs. Move-on and Kos however, are ideal partners for a group that makes its mission to promote better ideological consistency between Democrats and the progressive movement.

(none of us can even agree on what the term 'progressive' means which points towards pragmatism is its basis)

Pragmatism is an ideological term.

I agree with you about authentic local insurgent campaigns being hugely important. Ditto the value of BLOGPAC.
Local bloggers can function in the community to give a platform to early voices of insurgency and who then have a megaphone from which to make their case to a wider audience. TWFUS will subtly incentivize potential local challengers by their very existence making it known that there will be expertise and resources available to campaign effectively against the advantages of incumbency.
It's not necessary to obtain rigid progressive consensus to identify politicians who repeatedly posture against the straw-man left, or who repeatedly vote against progressive values (Tauscher on the bankruptcy bill, for example). If some polticians wants to vote their conscience outside of the progressive spectrum fine. But a pattern of comments and voting should be enough for us to make a determination (I haven't heard any arguments about Taucher being from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, but you are welcome to try).
Perhaps TWFUS's early aggression against certain politicians was a tactical mistake. Better to not name any politicians but to wait until they can annouce that they are making resources available to an indiginous local campaign. But that criticsm is a long way from declaring the whole project DOA.
And my strategic criticism still holds that groups like the lawyers and the SEIU shouldn't be involved because they are too easily compromised by having business before the pols.

I personally think that how we progressives assert our power and will is fascinating.  We just saw an example of it here in MN when we elected Keith Ellison.

Marty Sabo, the long-time rep, decided to retire and announced it two months before the nominating convention.  I surmise that he hoped his timing wouldn't allow we progressives to get behind a candidate and that his long-time aide would get the nod because of the short time-frame.  It didn't quite work out that way.  As y'all may recall, Keith got the endorsement and won the primary.

While I was pretty excited to see TWFU formed, it seems sadly typical that its brave launch is followed by a craven reassessment.  Taking stands and holding people accountable seems so ... dunno ... dangerous?  I'm not all that surprised that this happened, but I'm always wondering about how we can come together more often.

While y'all have Tauscher in the Bay Area, we have former Dem Norm Coleman.  There seems to be little difference (I could be wrong, but ...) other than party designation and Norm is a confirmed weasel.  Our challenge here in MN is how can we find a progressive to run against Norm and then build a strong coalition behind her/him like we did for Keith Ellison.  Is it Al Franken?  State Sen. Mee Moua?  Minneapolis Mayor RT Rybak?  The rumors are swirling, theories abound, but how does the progressive movement behave in an organized manor to assert its will and power?

We're trying to figure this out here in MN ...

The Big E
mnblue.com

First, from what I hear TWFU is going forward. While the Trial Lawyers are no longer on board, it is easy to see how they should be able to hold consensus with the remaining organizations. And they have updated their website since removing the offenders list. When you look at what they said when they did it, it appears they are more interested in holding people together for future votes than holding individuals accountable for past failures. From their blog:

Week one of Working for US PAC has been an unmitigated success.  We haven't even officially named targets and we already have members of Congress scrambling to prove they are on our side.

Washington has been consumed this week by the State of the Union and Jim Webb's excellent response, the launch of major presidential campaigns and the debate about Iraq.  Despite all that, the creation of this organization that expects elected officials to actually work in the best interest of their constituents has created quite a stir.  

Because members of Congress are politicians first, they understand exactly what WFUPAC can accomplish.   They know what can be unleashed by the combining the power of progressive organizations with the netroots.  They know that the prospect of facing well-funded primary opposition is real -- and it does have an effect.

After our first week, Members of Congress now know they are on notice - so they're making calls, their press secretaries are telling the media how hard they work for us and trying to prove they're on our side.   Talk is cheap.  We want action, not words.  

So far, our plan is working.  But, we're watching and we've just gotten started.  Monday we launched with three initial "top offenders," and there will be more.

I was pissed at how they bungled the worst offenders list, but a tactical mistake isn't indicative of of a problem with strategic vision.

Both accountability and solidarity are pragmatic approaches to dealing with the fact that politics is about ideological values. If you wanted to view things through the lens of ideology, then BlogPAC's social security effort was a litmus test (when in fact it was about solidarity).

While focusing on solidarity now may be easier since we are in the majority, I would argue that accountability is key because that is the only way to ensure that teamwork will prevail during the tough times.

Take Ellen Tauscher for example. Instead of taking the TWFU approach of trying to keep her on board with Pelosi's agenda, the local netroots have taken the harsher approach that focuses on accountability for her past.

This isn't an ideological litmus test, it is a pragmatic decision that a safe Bay Area district shouldn't be wasted on the Chair of the NDC.

I agree that it doesn't make sense to use BlogPAC to "kick-start a local rebellion" but that doesn't mean that BlogPAC wouldn't be a perfect vehicle to catapult organic local rebellions.