The post here at FireDogLake gives the skinny. The highlight (or lowlight) of Kaushik's comments is this:
As as pressure group on the Democratic Party, Kaushik said bloggers push their own agenda, and that doesn't always agree with the party leadership, combining elements of a political movement with the behavior of a traditional constituency group. He points to Lamont and his candidate's campaign as examples of the bloggers' limitations.
"They're not at the point yet where they can really swing a race," Kaushik said. His challenge is keeping Burner from becoming too closely associated with the local liberal blogosphere, which overwhelmingly supports her. "Part of my job is making sure people know the blogosphere is not the campaign," he said.
I sent $25 Darcy Burner's way a while back so I decided to call and see what her campaign office had to say. The woman who answered the phone -- who sounded highly stressed and sincere, btw -- said that Ms. Burner does not agree with Kaushik's comments, is very upset, and that working with the grassroots to build a movement is the favorite part of her (Burner's) job. Burner will apparently make a statement to address the situation.
At any rate, that's the scoop.
Update: Crisitunity points out some context in an reply below:
Kaushik wasn't issuing a press release, he was being interviewed for a broad piece about the blogosphere's role, for the UW's daily newspaper (appropriately enough, called the Daily). Sounds like he got a little too nuanced and reflective about his role, and probably undersold the possibilities of what we the netroots can do. (Our dollars probably provided the margin with Tester and Webb. That made a big difference.)
Update 2: I've had a couple of questions below. The first is "when will Darcy be addressing the situation" and the answer is... I don't know. I didn't think to ask the question at the time.
Someone also questioned whether I was reading too much into the staffer's dismay/sincerity. I don't think so for 2 reasons.
The first is that she flat-out said that Darcy does not agree; is upset; and her favorite part of her job is working with the grassroots. The second is that she said that Darcy would be making a statement to address the situation.
You don't, as a staffer, get to speak for a candidate/official unless it's been okayed. I've been a field officer for 2 campaigns and this is a hard-and-fast rule.
The 2nd is that I do believe that you can get a sense of a candidate's attitude toward a particular issue and/or his constituents, etc., by how the staffer treats the caller. Calling Joe Lieberman's various offices over the course of several years convinced me he was a jackass long before I ever got involved with the Lamont campaign.