Tuesday, September 25, 2007
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)
Brooks vs. the netroots, round XVII
Brooks' argument is that the liberal netroots are not meeting expectations in affecting the Democratic Party:
Now it’s evident that if you want to understand the future of the Democratic Party you can learn almost nothing from the bloggers, billionaires and activists on the left who make up the “netroots.” You can learn most of what you need to know by paying attention to two different groups — high school educated women in the Midwest, and the old Clinton establishment in Washington.Read the whole thing... definitely not crap. But I do have a few cavils. Are celebrities mobuls really shying away from Clinton? Wasn't Steven Spielberg's endorsement a signal to other members of the cultural elite to line up behind Hillary? Similarly, hasn't Hillary's supporters been more likely to max out their campaign contributions to date -- suggesting that Obama has done just as well in tapping support from low income households? And would the netroots really be upset by President Hillary? Wasn't there a fair amount of netroots enthusiasm about Hillary's health care plan?
Readers are requested to link to the most hyperbolic netroot response they can find to this column.posted by Dan on 09.25.07 at 08:35 AM
If I understand Brooks correctly, he is predicting that the "netroots'" bark will end up being worse than their bite, and that as the campaign heads into the homestretch -- in this cycle, the homestretch seems likely to begin sometime around late February -- they will line up obediently behind Sen. Clinton's money and organization.
This strikes me as a sound prediction.posted by: Zathras on 09.25.07 at 08:35 AM [permalink]
Daniel, I think you got this one wrong. Glenn Greenwald has a very persuasive takedown of this piece at http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
Post a Comment: