Not the most amazingly insightful piece written, but interesting anyhow. The most important part, and the cons and msm will never get this, is the lack of idealogical rigidity. There’s a coalition of conservative, moderate, and very liberal people who just want to see the Democratic party stop acting like a whipping boy for the press and the right. Also notable is (yet again) the use of the word “movement” to accurately describe the left and right much to the chagrin of Jay Caruso.
I certainly became more politically involved after the 2000 election (this blog, in fact, began maybe a month or two after Bush was sworn in in 2001).
I still hate the word “netroots” but it is what it is.
People still use the word movement when they talk about the 14 billion dollar domestic Organic market.
What ya gona do?
yea, no idealogical litmus test with this “movement”! Well, don’t ask Lieberman about it but…..yea, a “coalition” thats the ticket!
Why does “movement” seem so, appropriate in this case? Hmmmmm
I’m loathe to anything you post anymore Pedro, but it isn’t idealogical why I and others dislike Lieberman - it is because he apologizes and makes up facts for the war while (when he was a Democrat) pissing on the Democratic party. There are Dems who are far more conservative than Lieberman (ie. Byron Dorgan, Harry Reid, Jim Webb, Heath Shuler, Mark Pryor) yet have the common sense to not piss on their party or continue to support the war at all costs.