Tim Fullerton

Yesterday, NY Times columnist David Brooks wrote this interesting column arguing that the netroots are not an effective voice within the Democratic party. Not surprisingly the netroots have angrily reacted to this assumption. As with any argument, I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I’ll try and break it down the best I can.

The netroots have yet to establish themselves as a voting force. Not one netroots candidate has won state-wide election to date. In 2004, it was Dean, in 2006 it was Ned Lamont. Neither came close to winning. Yes, Lamont won the Democratic nomination, but that doesn’t really mean much when all you’ve done is remove the D from the winner and made him show his true colors (which probably led to a more conservative voting record as well). In 2008, the candidate is either Obama or Edwards, and both are trailing Hilary in the polls.

With this being said, I don’t think the netroots are irrelevant. The netroots have proven to be a fantastic resource for fundraising. It’s probably because of them alone that John Edwards is even in this race. They have funneled a lot of money to a lot of candidates, and that has made a difference. They are also excellent at spreading outrage about the Republicans. Yesterday, they jumped all over Rudy’s $9.11 fundraiser, and have helped bring Bill O’Reilly’s latest outrages to the mainstream.

Of course I’m overly simplifying this issue, but at the end of the day, the netroots are not in control of the Democratic Party, but they clearly are a force any Dem must (and should) deal with when running for office.

Hi everyone (or no one due to my lack of posts),

After a very busy summer, I’m back and ready to start writing again. There is just too much going on online not to comment. Hopefully there are still some people out there who might be waiting in anticipation for me to say something. Well, I’m working on a post about David Brooks netroots column in the NY Times yesterday. You might be surprised to hear what I think….