Netroots Activism 101

Peter Daou, who was on the Kerry campaign, surely gets how the intersection of opinion, action, and perception can be affected by the netroots. The Kerry internet and outreach operations were outstanding. But the Kerry strategy and planning operations sucked - which is why Kerry got nailed by the Swift Boaters and the $79 Billion issues. They also had no idea how the "gay marriage" issue would be gamed by Rove's Republicans in specific high-profile states to give synergy to the Republican slime machine (see Ohio). This same tactic has been used by [R]'s in perpetuity on choice, and will be used again on immigration (see Tancredo).

Peter also gets how the Democrat Party infrastructure is ponderous and tone-deaf as to what we on-the-ground and outside-the-loop can see and hear with crystal clear accuity -

the constant instinct to play it safe by our national Democratic "leaders" leads to only one thing: a perception by the general public and the Gang of 500 press that they don't have the guts to do the job.

This fight or flight instinct has to change, and it has to change now. Daou shows how:

How would a functioning triangle have worked?

1. Weeks before the hearings, Dem leaders would have encouraged the netroots to build a buzz about one or two pivotal Alito issues. These issues would then have been hammered repeatedly during the hearings, reiterated by Dem surrogates, by outside groups, and blasted across blogs as the hearings progressed. (Presidential power and the nexus between the NSA scandal and Alito would have been one of those issues.)

2. Weeks before the hearings, Dem leaders would have set a trap for Alito by using his obvious and easily anticipated strong point against him, namely his demeanor. The Bush tactic, as evidenced by John Roberts, is to suck the life out of the proceedings by making everything as boring and pedantic as possible. The media then obediently claims the hearings are proof of the nominee's thoughtfulness and composure. In a functioning triangle, Dems, with the help of the netroots and honest media figures, would have prepared the public by making Alito's demeanor an issue using 'question of the day' framing, as in: "Are you troubled by the gap between Alito's radical views and his matter-of-fact attitude?" or something along those lines.

3. A list of mainstream reporters, GOP shills like Norah O'Donnell and Wolf Blitzer, would have been targeted by a Dem war room: their various Bush-propping tricks (like using polls to 'prove' that Americans are "divided" and don't share liberal activists' alarm over Alito, that the hearings are boring and Alito is a shoe-in, that Democrats are pre-judging Alito but Republicans aren't, etc.) would have been laid out in a detailed memo before the hearings.

4. An army of bloggers and online activists would have been recruited to flood these reporters with complaints whenever those tricks were employed. Screen shots, video clips, caricatures, chain emails, Flash pieces, podcasts, any and all available technology would have been used to individually target reporters who peddled GOP storylines on Alito.

5. Dem leaders and surrogates would have expressed outrage at rightwing media bias and demanded fair coverage. Every media appearance would have included a direct slam at the press for misleading the American public about Alito and Bush's hidden agenda. Again, Alito's "composure" would have been an issue: why is he so low key when his beliefs are so radical?