But I don't see the Dems being smart enough to play like this. Currently there's a whole lot of pandering and submission, and it doesn't look strategic - it looks sincere.
The Dems could win this by re-regulating the media, pulling some kind of anti-trust or tax investigation on Fox (which cannot possibly be 100% squeaky clean) and getting closer to the netroots.
But unless Edwards wins the nomination - and possibly even then - it's going to be cocktail parties as usual in Washington.
What the netroots haven't admitted to themselves yet, but are edging towards slowly, is that progressives and Beltway Democracts are not in the same party. Aside from the name, they have next to nothing in common politically.
The Beltway Dems are more like moderate rightists. There's nothing progressive about any of them.
This is obvious to outsiders, but seems to have escaped the notice of progressives in the US - at least so far.
I agree the Beltway Dems are behind progressives as far as what they want to do, but what specific policies proposed by Clinton/Obama/Edwards would you say are "moderate right"?
As a counterexample, Paul Krugman claims that all three of their healthcare plans are fundamentally the same (except in some details) and good proposals -- both in their actual content and their pragmatic likelihood of getting passed and implemented. Would you call these plans of theirs "moderate right"? Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
