I've been thinking about this on and off for a while, because my biggest concern about Dailykos under a President Obama has always been that it will become either a talk-radio-esque cheering section or an endless collection of venting about how he sold us out.
Daniel DeGroot of Openleft wrote a post after Obama's FISA statement calling it the netroots' finest hour:
Atrios Wanker of the Day: Barack Obama. Digby and Matt are cheering the effort to go after Steny. 285K has been raised for that very reason. 116 comments smacking Steny here. This top recommended Dailykos diary takes Obama to task for supporting the bill. Pelosi doesn't escape rebuke. Chris plans removing those responsible.
I know this is a crushing defeat. But damn if this doesn't make me proud of the netroots again. For awhile there the primary fight was gut wrenching in many regards. But here everyone is again, firing on all cylinders against the very people they helped elect.
and I see a lot of people demanding Obama be "held accountable". But what, in practice, does this mean? What's the leverage people can exert? They can do things to make him less likely to win the election, like withholding contributions. I don't think there's much of a point to that, the election has only two possible outcomes. Once or if he's elected, though, then what? They can support primary challengers to various bad-acting Dems, but let's not kid ourselves and assume that the netroots community has a magic wand or absolute power. Dan Lipinski is still in office, so is Leonard Boswell, so, after all and alas, is Joe Lieberman. The only time this was successful was with Donna Edwards replacing Al Wynn, in one of the most Democratic districts in the country, and there are only so many of those around. Maybe John Barrow will lose to Regina Thomas and that will cause people to sit up and take notice. Maybe Steny Hoyer will lose in 2010, although that'd be so different than the Edwards/Thomas/Lamont cases that I have to think of it as vanishingly unlikely, but who knows? (People do need to think about odds in activism, and not act as if every plan is equally likely to succeed or worth devoting yourself wholeheartedly to. There's this great exchange Barney Frank had with Al Lowenstein, I read about it in a bio of Lowenstein. Lowenstein would make some plan, Frank would express his doubts, and Lowenstein would come back with "that's what they said when I wanted to Dump Johnson". And Frank would reply "Yeah, you were right once, this time you're wrong". I could move to Mississippi and work my heart out trying to elect a pro-gay-marriage, and only pro-gay-marriage, Senator. That'd be great if it worked. Is it worth trying? "But that's what people said when we wanted to dump Lieberman"). What else is in the toolbox, other than primary challenges?
Like DeGroot, I'm glad people are willing to go after Obama when they feel he's fucked up, I'm glad they're that intellectually honest, but what'll the effect be, if anything? People bitch about lots of politicians online, it doesn't seem to have too much impact on them. So how do you hold a Presidential candidate or President accountable? You can try to organize around particular issues, as Kathy G calls for here, but that's not the same as punishing a President, Speaker, or whatever. So I'm asking. (Updated to add the part about Mississippi above).