I checked and it’s not up yet, but the Sunday New York Times Magazine has an article by Matt Bai that discusses us pesky bloggers. I’m anxious to read the whole thing, but here’s a taste.

NEW YORK In an article in the upcoming Sunday edition of The New York Times Magazine, frequent contributor Matt Bai looks at the aftermath of the recent midterm elections. Yet he suggests that things may not be all that rosy for Democrats as voters seem suspicious of anyone who gains power in Washington, D.C.

In Bai’s view, the Dems have another possible problem: the very same liberal bloggers that helped make them the new majority in Congress.

The party’s leaders have vowed to put together an agenda and work with the president and other Republicans to implement it. But Bai declares that there will be “significant obstacles to doing that” and only partly because the new Democratic caucus, as we’ve already seen, is fairly disparate.

His explanation: The party used to be controlled by narrow interest groups, such as “big labor.” They still hold influence but they are in decline, only to have given way “to a new array of powerful actors: MoveOn.org, liberal philathropists, crusading bloggers. These new forces don’t care so much about litmus-test policies, but they are adamant about confronting the president. The influence of the netroots, as the growing Web-based Democrats have come to be called, is likely to stifle an inclination toward compromise or creativity, making it difficult for Democrats to transition from an opposition party to a governing one. Thoughtful and dynamic leadership, after all, requires a willingness to negotiate and a tolerance for dissent.”

The netroots is diverse and in that sense I would agree that we don’t care so much about litmus tests. I know I care a great deal about women’s rights which is why I refused to support Bob Casey Jr. and savaged Rendell and Schumer for shutting down the primaries. Yet, at the end of the day I voter not so much for Casey as against Santorum. I just couldn’t refuse myself that pleasure. The larger question about netroots’ influence is how our adamant insistence on confronting the President will influence, positively or negatively, the Democratic Party and their prospects in 2008. One thing I can tell you right now. Hillary Clinton may be the Establishment’s front-runner and she may have a wide lead in the early polling, but she is unlikely to get any unpaid support from the Netroots from any quarter. The Netroots is tapping into a new ethos and is totally at odds with the policies of the Democratic Leadership Council. As far as I can tell, the Israel Lobby has almost no influence over the Netroots, as evidenced by the reaction to the devastation of Lebanon, the uniform opposition to Joe Lieberman, and the support for replacing Jane Harman as House Intelligence chair.

The Netroots is totally deaf to Israel’s concerns (on Israel’s right) in the ‘War on Terror’ which is why it is totally alienated from people like Ed Koch, Joe Lieberman, Jane Harman, James Woolsey, and other traditionally hawkish Democrats. A lot of people from that constituency suspect an anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic bias in the Netroots as a result of this attitude, but it isn’t that. It’s a lack of faith in the strategy of the ‘war on terror’. My number one pick for the 2008 nomination was Russ Feingold. He’s Jewish. And his ideas on safeguarding Israel are much more aligned with my ideas than Joe Lieberman’s.

The Netroots is a populist phenomenon and it is, broadly speaking, a populist force. It’s also a watchdog. Democrats can no longer get away with voting against negotiating prescription drug prices or for the bankruptcy bill without paying a heavy price. Primary challenges will be the wave of the future for Democrats that follow the DLC’s line and backstab ordinary hard-working citizens. This will make it extremely hard for the Democrats to make meaningful compromises with an administration as ideological and pro-big business as the Bush administration.

We can already see the strains opening up on the left. Lieberman was the start. Carville’s latest ravings are another indicator. The controversy over Jane Harman is another one. Corporatists, Hawks and pro-Likud hardliners within the party are going find themeselves under intense pressure and may even bolt the party as the Netroots continues to build its strength and flex its muscles.

On the issue of confronting the President, I believe that that will unfold organically and somewhat unpredictably, as the various congressional investigations encounter stonewalling and/or unearth severe wrongdoing. The Netroots will inevitably be all over every revelation and be pushing to punish each example of obstruction of justice. There’s no question that the Netroots will be riding saddle on the Congress to exact justice and mete out punishment. Whether the Dems will resist this in the interests of finding common cause and an exit strategy from Iraq, or whether the facts will build inexorable momentum for impeachment…well, that remains to be seen.

What is certain is that the Netroots has arrived, it is here to stay, and that it will shift the dynamics of American politics, and the Democratic Party, in ways the media and the Beltway insiders cannot predict and will not like.