Why "liberal bloggers" are a political threat

I've been reading the back-and-forth between Clinton and the audience at the YearlyKos convention, specifically her statement that she will continue to receive campaign funds from federal lobbyists.

Now, the coverage of this exchange is frankly just as interesting as the exchange itself. Here's a sampling:

The New York Times:

"...Mr. Edwards got back on his hobby horse against Washington lobbyists, saying his rivals did not need to wait until the next election to start reforming..." (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/04/the-democratic-debate-begins/#more-2183)

And The Atlantic Monthly (which was founded, by the way, as a magazine of the abolitionist movement...a little-known factoid):

"...After dozens of forums in the last four months, it seemed as if the presidential candidates had run out of new things to say, and despite the promise of Netroots sparkle, today's YearlyKos roundtable, held in a poorly lit, cavernous convention hall, was kind of dingy...

... Although the headline-making exchange will probably unsettle Clinton's campaign, her refusal to disavow the culture of Washington was not surprising. Her platform aims to restore competence to government, to work within government to produce solutions, and to bring the Democratic Party back to power. John Edwards is running as an anti-institutionalist, taking on the Bigs. Barack Obama has placed on a pox on both houses of Congress and both political parties. Clinton seemed to relish the challenge of disagreeing with the audience, joking with them as they began to boo her. It was hard to here [sic] precisely what she said, but it sounded like "I'm here. This is real. It's what you were waiting for."
(http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/the_mccormick_place_convention.php)

This is it, folks. The "liberal media", up close and personal. The writing in the above referenced pieces suggest a free-wheeling, let's-take-our-professional-masks-off-for-a-moment-and-say-what-we-really-think style. The writers are making attempts here to connect with the "vibe" they get from these bloggers...only, there is one vast difference: the bloggers at YearlyKos are not in the employ of major multi-national corporations, or Historic Magazines of Renowned American Thought.

"So what?" You may be thinking to yourself. "I mean, they're still working-stiffs, right?"

True. But defending the folks that put bread on your table can sometimes be a reflex so powerful it ingratiates itself into the fabric of your soul. And, in my opinion, that's exactly what's happened here.

And it begs the question: what's up with this?

There are three components to political power, as any good poli-sci professor knows: people, money and guns. Rarely does any one entity, be it State, State-Actor or Social Movement, have all three. Generally they're very good in one and have the other as a strong second.

Let's look at the US, for example. What are we strong in right now? Money and guns. In fact, they're so intertwined in our power structure that sometimes we can't distinguish one from the other. Wal-mart? Money...and people (even if they're being exploited), are a distant second. Al-Qaeda? People and money. Let's face it, an entity who's strong in the "guns" area doesn't build make-shift bombs or fly airplanes into buildings. If Al-Qaeda were strong in guns, a suitcase bomb would have exploded in a major US metropolitan area by now.

What does all of this sidetracking have to do with YearlyKos, and the above-referenced coverage of it by Big Media?

YearlyKos is a physical representation of the power of the liberal blogosphere, which is now approaching something resembling a Social Movement. It is very strong in people. With all of these people talking together ad-infinitum, it may start to attract money (in the form of grants, donations, or even job opportunities). That's two of the three spheres needed to have real political power (and, unless Kos shows up on YouTube with an Uzi calling for an armed takeover of NewsCorp, I'm assuming "guns" are out of the question).

Imagine if Gandhi had been a blogger. Or King. Or John Lennon.

*That's* what is terrifying to the current power structure in this country. And, that's why you're seeing folks from the New York Times and the Atlantic Monthly - entities that have lost people, one of their most important ingredients for political power - give snide remarks and back-handed coverage to both YearlyKos and any candidates who excite the populism of bloggers.

We were once their silent readers. Now we are their interrogators. And every dropped subscription reminds them of their daily obsolescence.

I guess, in their situation, I'd be a little snarky, too.