Two points - First three cheers for the influence! It is terrific that the Democratic Presidential candidates deemed it absolutely necessary that they appear at the conference. Second the Netroots biggest success in media is the check on the main stream media. The MSM can no longer put out bullshit and get away with it. Too bad the Republicans have forgot all about checks and balances in government.

With all due respect to Markos's modesty, he did more than build a web site. He set some ground rules for discussion, provided focus, and did some damn good writing. Then he recruited others who replicated these same attributes. I read DailyKos regularly (daily?) because of this and the real reporting that uncovers stories before the mainstream media gets around to them or fleshes out stories that the MSM does a poor job reporting.

A White House blogger (even if the President) would make exactly zero change or difference. Blogging (the type that is transformative) are those that facilitate the interactive aspect of the media. The fact that you Kari, and I (and everyone else) INTERACT and have dialog are what is transformative. Having a one-way alternative media outlet to issue call-to-action or issue statements and pressers is hardly something to get excited about.

I love the enthusiasm, Kari, but I think the reality is very different. I'll chalk it up to post convention enthusiasm.

let's take donations--even if millions of Americans donate via the web, this is no more a measure of "netroots" than tens of millions of Americans paying their credit cards online was a signal that the "brick" shopping of the past was destined for the ash heap. Donations will be given online because it's easy, convenient, and fast.

The bloggers won't replace the mainstream media anytime soon because no one plays the role of "mediator," aggregator, and interpreter. The major newspaper dailies will continue to play that role not because they are read by the public, but because they are read by the opinion leaders--policy makers, scholars, politicians, interest group leaders, and yes, bloggers--who then transmit this information through other avenues to the public. A radically disaggregated media universe simply cannot supplant this role.

"Netroots nation" consists of, at most, a few million connected Americans. We're far from the time when a presidential candidate will be "delivered" by the netroots. Are they important--of course they are. But this revolution will continue to be televised.

Paul, your analysis seems pretty limited to me. What studies have been done that demonstrate the osmotic pattern you describe--MSM to blogosphere? I look at BlueOregon's readers, and I see quite a number reading at their desks at the Oregonian. I know that major opinion writers at the WaPo and Times read blogs (they say they do and cite bloggers). How do you measure the direction of the influence? There's clear cross-fertilization. So you could ask the question: is Obama a media darling because the bloggers read about him in the mainstream press, or because the mainstream press saw the excitement in the blogosphere?

Another example of their influence is the work Josh Marshall and others did on the fired prosecutors. It's not at all clear that the story would have been pursued without the blogosphere. The ripple effects of that--further erosion of GOP credibility, news cycle after news cycle reiterating the White House's misdeeds--may all lead to enormous consequences.

Let's say we lived in an alternative universe where there weren't blogs in 2006. Would the nation's disgust at the corruption of the GOP have been as profound? Would the Dems have taken the Senate?

How certain are you of the train of causality here?

I'd rather talk about influence (as Jeff and Paul are), but I would like to address this one item from PDXSkip:

The million $35 dollar donations from across the country might elect a couple of senators and a congressman or two but puts us well short of what the RNC claims to have in their war chests for key Senate and House races across the country.

....Oh yeah, I'm not saying that the end-all-be-all is $35 million. Heck, Obama is already beyond that now.

I'm talking about the seismic impact of $35 million in donations in the space of a day or two or three.

Paul wrote... The bloggers won't replace the mainstream media anytime soon because...

I'm pretty sure that I didn't argue that bloggers will replace the media. In fact, I argue the opposite point all the time when I talk to reporters.

They call me all the time for their reporting on the blogosphere, but the subtext is always the same: They fear for their jobs.

So, I'll say it explicitly:

• There will ALWAYS be a place for the mainstream media.

• Bloggers aren't going to take away the jobs of basic news journalists.

• If there's anyone that should be afraid of bloggers, it's the opinion magazines; who write on a 4-6 week advance timeframe, and yet don't do much original reporting either.

• The mainstream media has more to fear from eBay, Craigslist, Monster.com, and Google Ads than they do from bloggers. After all, it's classifieds that provide the real money.

And none of that discussion has anything to do with my real point: That the blogosphere is growing the activist core.

Paul dismisses the Netroots Nation thusly:

"Netroots nation" consists of, at most, a few million connected Americans. We're far from the time when a presidential candidate will be "delivered" by the netroots.

Yeah, but Paul, how many people actually volunteered on campaigns in the pre-internet age? If each congressional district has 100 hard-core campaign volunteers, that's only 43,500 people! If the number is really 1000, then that's only 435,000 people. (And I think it's closer to 100 than 1000.)

A few million connected Americans who care passionately about taking this country back will be an enormous force in our democracy.

Paul and Skip are right to be skeptical of the influence of the netroots. They rightly claim that if we rest on our accomplishments so far (which, let's be honest, have been relatively modest), our relevance will fade as quickly as it has grown (if not faster).

However, I disagree with their apparent belief that this will actually happen. To both of their points, just reading and commenting on blogs isn't enough. However, I don't see that anyone is saying it is. Speaking purely from my own experience: when I came to the blogosphere, I was a merely concerned citizen who always had a passing interest in politics, but never knew how to get involved (like most of us, I've never had anywhere near the kind of financial resources required to directly influence a candidate or an election). But the blogs got me thinking. And then they got me talking to others. And then they got me meeting with like-minded folks in an effort to "exact change" (yes, that's a shameless plug for the Bus Project, which played a vital role in this journey). Finally, it got me donating to causes and candidates around the country (in very carefully targeted, modest amounts; I'm still not wealthy) and becoming a local activist. Last year I knocked on around 500 doors for various candidates and causes. That's not a huge number, and there are many who've done far more, but if we can get a mere fraction of the millions who are involved in the netroots to commit the that kind of activism and small dollar donations, it really could change the entire way the game is played.

Let's clear something up right now:

The million $35 dollar donations from across the country might elect a couple of senators and a congressman or two but puts us well short of what the RNC claims to have in their war chests for key Senate and House races across the country.

The RNC doesn't fund Senate and House races in Presidential years...or at least they're not designed to. But you bring up the salient point in this election, which is that the RNC is going to HAVE to help out--because the RSCC and NRCC are getting absolutely thumped by their Democratic counterparts. It's painful--in one case I believe the CoH was 19mil to 2mil, and the GOP spent more than the Democrats raised, while themselves raising less. The traditional saving grace of the GOP's election machine--big money--is totally absent right now. The only guy not in trouble is Romney and he's doing it largely with his own money. Even the RNC, which has outraised the DNC by as much as 3 to 1 within the last six years, is now on more like a 3 to 2 pace.

Obviously money will come home at some point. But not like usual--and the amazing part is they have so many more seats to defend, particularly in the Senate. They'll be spread razor thin, while Democrats will (hopefully) lavish money on 6 to 10 races in the Senate, and another 50 to 100 or more in the House. And the Democratic Presidential nominee will be awash in money when it's all said and done.

For the first time in perhaps ever, I think the two parties are likely to go into November 2008 on an even keel financially...and that's being generous to the GOP right now.

<h2>DannyK -- You're spot on. As I've said before every election, quoting Markos, "Turn off your computer, go outside, and knock on some doors."</h2>