''Is Josh Feit right?''

"Over at the Slog, Josh suggests that "Democratic Blogs Undermine Democrats' Chances of Regaining Power."

Do we? I suggest not, as the blogs are largely a reactive medium, although the sheer noise level produced from the variety of blogs certainly informs some policy- and strategy-making. For the most part, we see a strategy developing and comment on it, perhaps bitch about it, and suggest (in some cases, insist on) changes. Same with policy, although by and large liberal/Democratic/lefty/whatever blogs seem much more concerned with strategy than policy, what with us being in the minority and unable to make much policy headway.

But given the events of this past weekend, it seems clear that we have the potential to have a hugely negative effect on strategy, and if nothing else, can easily lose our way and expose relatively minor internal tussling in such a way that it becomes a major thing for the right wing to latch onto and drive a narrative of crazy, in-fighting liberals.

What say you? Is Josh right? Do we help or hurt? Is it that simple? "-switzterblog on Washblog.

My two cents: Like Peter Daou says in his piece "THE (Broken) TRIANGLE: Progressive Bloggers in the Wilderness," the problem is that the "traditional media," the elected Democratic leadership and the bloggers are not working together like the rovians do. Now Mr. Feit attended a strategy meeting in Olympia with bloggers and Olympia Democrats. He writes about it and tells us the two best tactics he heard (I agreed with him, by the way). Isn't that what he is complaining about?