The following is the first paragraph of Donald Stewart's
The Opposition Press of the Federalist Period (Albany: The State University of New York Press, 1969):
The newspapers were to blame. Virtually everyone said so. Thomas Jefferson would not have been elected, nor Joh Adams defeated, in 1800 without them. On this point both Federalists and Republicans agreed. Jefferson and his lieutenants credited the press with his victory, while Federalist chiefs and journals alike berated opposition newspapers for sweeping that party from office. Accordingly, it is surprising that scholars, politicians, and propogandists have paid so little attention to the instrumentality by which (if contemporaries were correct) in eleven short years, apparently almost out of thin air, a successful opposition political party was created. Before six or seven of those years had passed, the party so formed was a potent political force; in approximately a decade it had become dominant.
(emphasis added)
Sure, the press has been a force in politics every since (look at the "failures" of the press in 2004 that helped elect Bush), but it is quite a different press than the one of the Federalist period, when it was primarily a political instrument--often in the hands of "common" people.
The press was the tool of a popular movement spearheaded, it is true, but the high-profile Jefferson, but populist, nontheless.
The movement that Markos envisioned, if it is successful, will be spearheaded by the blogs, today's closest equivalent to the press of the early republic. Crashing the Gates doesn't deal with that fact, but concentrates on the party--which is appropriate. Again, the press of the 1790s was a tool of the political parties as much as it shaped those parties. The party has to be strong if it is going to effectively use the tool.
Kos understands this.