Those who are inside distrust those who are outside. Whether it is the State Dems dissing the bloggers or if it is on a smaller, more local scale like a local, supposedly reform Democratic club disenfranchising and actually scolding newcomers for joining, the old timers distrust the newcomers. And, to be fair, the newcomers don't always play by the old rules, thus further scaring the timid old timers.

The old timers will slowly fade away. The problem is, who will replace them if the newcomers are pushed away so often that their main view of the party is as an unwelcoming, hostile force. "Democrats eat their seed corn" was what one disenfranchised newcomer to that Democratic club commented. Democratic insiders destroy the party's future in order to hold onto the reins of power. So the future is angry at the present leaders.

That makes for a very ineffective party.

...I could have gone to the convention .

The problem is two-fold, and by the way I think it's not nearly as black and white as you make it. Certainly, when you have people like John Kerry posting on Daily Kos, I don't think you can speak of wholesale exclusion. Ferrer's campaign had its head up its ass in more ways than the one you describe, and I wouldn't take that example as broadly indicative of anything.

I'd diagnose the problem as this: the institutional party hasn't yet quite realized that bloggers are activists more than journalists, and on the other hand, many bloggers, especially on the far left, really are very antagonistic to the party as it is.

There's a view out there that, if candidate X isn't with you on obscure issue Y, that person must be rejected in toto. That does not create warm fuzziness, to be blunt. Consider, say, the Vichy Democrats meme; that's not going to establish a lot of confidence, even in those not part of the group, to engage with the blogosphere. Or consider, on this blog, the vituperation directed at, say, the Brooklyn machine, cough. The perception is that blogs spend a lot of time and digital ink on attacking Democrats, and there is some truth to that.

I think that as the blogosphere matures - by which I don't mean a value judgment, but an aggregation of political experience within the medium - you'll see it play a more pronounced role within the established party structure. Give it time. Every new medium is integrated into the political process - think radio, TV and cable in their time - and blogs will be no different.

These are good comments. One factor I see that could be a real problem in 2008 is the perception that many left wing progressives are obsessed with one issue. That issue being the war in Iraq. I supported Howard Dean last time around, and I was amazed at how many people I found who seemed to be supporting him solely and entirely because of his stance against the war. Dean was a centerist governor, he favored states rights on issues like gun control .etc There were in fact plenty of issues the left could have had against him. But Dean was solidly anti-war, and all of a sudden that was all that mattered. I supported Dean because he wanted to bring the Democratic party back to its roots as the party that is committed to making government work for the common people, and help the common people have a fair chance to make the best out of their lives. That had nothing to do with wanting the most rabidly anti-war candidate, although his stance against the war was very good.

My fear is that in 2008 that there again will be a movement on the left to make the election nothing but a referendum on the war. We who are left wing activists need to come behind a comprehensive platform for the changes this country needs both at home and abroad. A one-issue anti-war campaign will not win. Howard Dean made great strides before the primaries as the anti-war candidate uniting the left on that one issue. But once the primaries started, voters were looking for more traditional liberal rhetoric. They opted for the meat-and-potatoes liberal Kerry over Dean, because Dean was perceived as being just the anti-war candidate. Which wasn't Dean's fault, that perception was pushed hard by his legions of progressive bloggers. As a result in Iowa on Caucus Day, there were Iowans who were stereotyping all the Deaniacs in their orange caps as simply anti-war fanatics.

In fact Dean had a great, comprehensive platform built around balancing social liberalism with fiscal practicality. But you wouldn't know it from the perception put forth by the bloggers, and they were who the press paid attention to for the most part. Dean did not come across ultimately in Iowa as the centerist governor with the same practical values as most Iowans have, he came across as the McGovern liberal anti-war candidate.

This mistake cannot be made again in 2008. The left can't simply find the most rabidly anti-war candidate and unite behind him/her as a one issue movement. That isn't the way you get elected. The movement has to have more depth, it has to be more comprehensive, it has to be about a whole series of issues as opposed to just one issue, and it cannot give off the *perception* of being just a one issue campaign. When you wage a campaign on one issue you ultimately get regarded as having little depth, you don't get taken seriously. Which is what's happened to left wing progressives, and is why I think the democratic political brass weren't interested in inviting a bunch of us up to albany for the convention.