Look, John Edwards is finished. He is the only Democrat supporting unions, besides Kucinich, and the unions won't cover his ass. If he can't get unions to cover him, then he's done for. The constituents he is after and the one's that currently like him are totally different. Either he can get with the picture and go all out for urban liberals who are pro globalization and free trade, but liberal on social issues and this BS war of terror on America, or he can keep aiming for economic populism that no one is supporting.

   While its interesting to see Obama and Clinton fight, I think whats happening in the GOP is more interesting. The race is between Fred and Mitt now. I think Rudy is out. The ISG is gonna kill him.

I'm sorry, but I can't support Obama. He is getting money from the Rangers and Pioneers who gave us Bush in 2000 and 2004.

    Becoming ideological in the Democratic Party is not the same as in the Republican Party. The GOP has always been for the rich, since its inception. There was nothing to change but the base. What ever the sympathies of the Democratic Party for the common man, it is full of decamillionaires, who stand to lose huge from the country becoming even marginally more progressive. You would have to either form a whole new party (why do it though since we have the Greens), or you would have to do primary challanges on everyone outside the progressive caucus, meaning 60-70% of all Democrats. And win all those primaries as well. Given the incumbency rule, and the fact that Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, the only liberals in this race, have garnered less than 2% of the vote even here, at this "liberal" blog, how the hell do you expect there to be a discussion of ideology.

    This issue here is the following; are we trying to merely get a majority, or build a movement. If you want a mojority, back Clinton or Obama. They have the star power to take back the white house for the Dems. If you want a movement though, then backing Edwards makes more sense, since he is the only one I have seen who is seriously running a New Deal, liberal class war campaign, which is what we need to win. The culture wars are worthless. We have sort of won them, and the only people coming to the polls for it is the other side. Class War is what will get our people to the polls, and listening to either Obama or Clinton, you wouldn't know that we weren't Republicans too.

  I am 21, and I can tell you that the fact is, the vote under 30 is liberal, but Democrats are not liberal. They are conservative compared to my peers. Thats why our vote is anti-Bush, not pro-Dem. Look. My generation is a redux of the GIs; we are pro-government, meaning we are big government liberals. For us, liberalism means the New Deal, the Great Society, getting stuff done. We are not the liberals which currently inhabit the Democratic Party. Those liberals are more into process and policy than ideas and action. Thats why there is a huge gap between the party and youth. We want a president like FDR, JFK, and LBJ. Not like Walter Mondale. Not like Jimmy Carter. Not like Gary Hart. Not like Bill Clinton. Get the picture?

   The issue of diversity in the blogosphere revolves around two things;

1) The diversity of the bloggers themselves, that is to say if they are wealthy, secular, straight, white and liberal males, or anybody else.

2) What issues does the progressive blogosphere deem important. Is ending the war in Iraq the top priority, with all else subordinate to it? Or are other items also on the agenda, indeed have to be, like GLBT rights, Women's equality, much stronger support for Animal Welfare, the Environment, etc.?

I think this is a tricky issue to tackle, to say the least. As we are talking about the progressive blogosphere with regards to the movement as a whole, I think the issue may be resolved by the following. Is the progressive blogosphere a niche onto itself, like African American Churches, or Union Halls, in which case it is crucial for the specific demographic mobilized there to be the demographic being targeted for activism and action, in which case it doesn't matter what the composition is, as it is simply coordinating to obtain its objectives, how ever broad or narrow. In this case think of the Sierra Club and NARAL. I am sure that there is quite some difference between the two groups, demographics wise. But they are still somewhat apart of the movement, and put their resources to work on those issues which they deem important with the movement.

The other view to be taken would be that the progressive blogosphere is not only a large mobilized section of the movement, but is growing large enough to have institutional power. The Democratic Party is an example of institutional power in the movement. Are there diversity issues? Most certainly yes, because it is in the party where the various parts of the movement coaless, and because of the size of the party, diversity is necessary regardless of personal feelings, since this is the manner by which channeling of the various parts of the movement may take place. If the progressive blogosphere does gain institutional power within the movement, then it does need greater diversity in audience and bloggers, or then the issues being focused on will switch to the blogosphere, and turf wars, policy fights, and other friction points of disunity will most certainly occur, as the paradigm of the Democratic Party shifts with it.

Where is the progressive blogosphere now? I would say it is part nitch, part institution. It is clear why the blogosphere is nitch, but let me elaborate on how it has institutional power. Are there other parts of the movement which have power? Yes, from MoveOn, to SEIU and AFL-CIO, to  the Environmental groups, etc. They all have some clout with the Democratic Party.

However, by dint of their demographic audiences, these groups are less focused on the meta level, on the broad application of issues and tactics for the movement. Whereas NARAL and Sierra Club go after their specific issues, the progressive blogosphere looks at all the issues, candidates, the interaction with the media, money, etc. Because of this, some of the progressive blogosphere is taking over the role of advisor and consultant to the Democratic Party, something which other groups are defintely not doing. This will raise the leverage of the blogosphere within the movement and the Democratic Party. How many bloggers are advising Democratic candidates? How does this compare to those from MoveOn, traditional interest groups, etc. They mgiht provide money and muscle, but the insight, and ultimately the vision, is increasingly dominated by the progressive blogosphere.

As such, I do think there will be a time when the stark differences between those in the progressive blogosphere, and those in the movement, could become a problem. The best thing to do in any event is to keep track of these developments.

    WTF? A few things. One, the average income in the US is 70-80k, so people who read blogs are average Americans, and not wealthy. Did you mean Median income? Also, people with Advanced degrees make on average over 100k a year, so if 40-50% of the readership has advanced degrees, then either the other half is making 40-60K, which is at least 15% less than the US income average, or the people with advanced degrees are poorer than those in the US on average (PHDs in English and Anthropology instead of MBAs, MDs, and JDs).

Sarkozy says he's cutting the top marginal rate from 60% to 50%, abolishing the 1.5% a year wealth tax, eliminating the 35 hour week, gutting unions, etc. He is the French Ronald Reagan, and that is a problem. If Europe continues to go right, there will be less and less a difference between the US and Europe, and it will become ever more difficult for the left in the US to argue for Social Democracy. There will cease to be a reason to vote for Democrats. Whats the slogan; Hey, everyone else is adopting the Republican way of doing things, so vote for us?

Right now we can at least point to Scandanavia, Germany and France as alternatives. But if they become subsidiaries of the rich and corporations like the US is, then the left in the US will look like extremists.  

  I wouldn't bet the farm yet. Let's remember one thing about 2008; W isn't running again. I think the Republican personality cult around Bush has had the effect of making everyone focus their eyes on Bush; as such, when he gets ready to leave, I think lots of people will be more ambiguous about 2008, since none of the current candidates look as polarizing as he was. As such, I think the match up between any of the top tier candidates, will be pretty tight.

 I don't get it. Republicans are not going to lose office in Mississippi, Alabama, or states like that. And there are at least twenty or so states like that. Unless the Republicans get pushed to 40 senators or less, than the war will still continue. As such, I think the war ain't stopping until Bush leaves. Then, if a Democrat wins office, the Republicans will blame us for being traitors and losing Iraq, and just like Vietnam, the American people will be led by the nose.

   Defense spending is going heavily to Sun Belt states, which are Republican. But so do social programs. Farm subsidies, medicaid, and social security are all needed more in Republican states than Democratic ones. Democrats give Republicans $100000000000 a year, and then Republicans turn around and say free market. BS. Republicans are all welfare queens in cadilacs and right wing socialists.

   What do you mean by businesses liking their politics quiet? Corporate America gives to the Republicans by a margin of 70-30%. Call that quiet. Call owning all the media, and flushing all serious news down the toilet (nothing covered on Bush in 2000, nothing), quiet? Yeah, right, and there is no moon. Listen. Corporations are the most poltical, and cruel, operators out there.