If you want to boycott, fine, go ahead. Your choice. Just don't on the one hand claim to be responsible for the election of moderate-conservative Democrats, but then, be pissed when the party committees and party leaders protect them for re-election.
Don't champion the 50-state strategy and talk about how great it was and how it was responsible for the wins in 2006, and then, complain about the inevitable result: moderates representing moderate districts and conservatives representing conservative districts.
Don't give free passes or downplay criticism of those elected officials who did significant netroots outreach, but then, play up criticism or use more aggressive language in criticizing other elected officials who have the same views on an issue and are in similar situations electorally. Or at least, just don't pretend that it's all about the issue.
Let's look at what happened a few years ago. Mark Warner was clearly DLC, and that was glossed over by a number of people in the netroots while Jerome Armstrong was working for him. It wasn't a case of "Warner claimed to be more progressive than he was." He was clearly a DLCer, but he didn't get half as much criticism at the time that other DLCers did. He doesn't even get half as much criticism now, and he has a lot more leeway to vote progressively than some of the other Senators who get regularly and (usually) deservedly criticized.
Some of the Blue Dogs that voted nay on HCR were those we knew were conservative Dems but got write-ups on the front page of DailyKos and a lot of support from this and other blogs. So boycotting the DCCC which is tasked with protecting incumbents that the netroots helped elect and champion is a bit funny. And y'all knew that the DCCC was going to protect these guys (like Walt Minnick) when they got elected.
Did you support the 50-state strategy? Running candidates everywhere? The 50-state strategy did mean electing more conservative Dems in more conservative districts.
I believe the frustration with Democrats is real, but I've noticed a trend of misleading and in some cases false statements about various established progressive organizations, whether it's a party committee or an issue advocacy organization. Whether someone is being intentionally misleading or was honestly misinformed is hard to tell, but the result is the same. So I have to ask, how much of these boycotts and criticism of progressive organizations is real? And how much of this is about building the power of netroots leaders? Not progressive power, but netroots power? Would the DNC/OFA boycott be happening if the Obama campaign had done netroots outreach as much as Edwards and Dodd did? Would the criticism of other progressive organizations be tempered if they bought blog ads? Does SEIU get a free pass because they employ Tim Tagaris, buy lots of blog ads and gives money to Accountability NOW? Is there another reason for the SEIU donation to Accountability NOW that hasn't been publicized? (In case you're wondering, SEIU found itself in hot water with its own union members in D.C. because they hired consultants, allegedly as a way of getting around union rules. If a corporation had done so, the outrage would be palpable.)
There's always been blogosphere triumphalism (sorry guys, the successful primary challenge of Al Wynn wasn't just a netroots thing but something all sorts of progressive orgs were involved in), but continuously pushing false narratives (even after being corrected) about progressive organizations has been happening with greater frequency.
So full transparency is required.
(For myself, I have not gotten a paycheck from a labor union, enviro groups, pro-choice groups, or a party committee.)