It is unfortunate though that the critques of the diary in the comments thread are rather wild and ineffective. Impeachment? Raising money for Al Wynn? Is that really where Pelosi is failing? Puhleeeaze. The reason Dems won in 2006 was the promise to end the Debacle in Iraq. It is obvious, as I have written in the past, that the Congress can not enact its agenda. But what it CAN do is stop the Bush agenda. It can end the war - by not funding it. It can not grant extraordinary powers to the President to engage in warrantless surveillance. It can disapprove of torture and not approve an AG nominee who will not say waterboarding is torture. It can prevent the most egregious excesses by the worst Administration in history. The Congress has done none of these things.

But let's suppose, for the sake of argument, the Welshman is right. That Pelosi is doing all she can. If the Netroots wants to change the field of play, what would be the smartest course of action. Should it rationalize away the failures of the Congress, as the Welshman suggests? Should it say, 'oh well, that's all they can do?' Should it settle? Of course not. The Netroots and the progressive base is the left flank of the Democratic Party. If they accept the status quo, then no progressive change will EVER occur. The proper role of the Netroots, in my opinion, is NOT to cheerlead and rationalize Democratic failure. The proper role of the Netroots and the progressive base is to pressure, cajole, push and prod for progressive movement in the Congressional agenda. If it does that, Pelosi's job (assuming she really wants progressive change) becomes easier. She needs to feel and see pressure from her Left. Some would see the Netroots and the Progressive base as just an arm of the Democratic Party, there only to support Democrats in elections. I've discussed this phenomena in the past. It is wrong and will lead to the utter irrelevance of the Netroots in particular.

It's funny because if Welshman understood the quote from Nancy Pelosi that he defends, he would not have written the diary. Pelosi said:

"They are advocates," she said. "We are leaders."

Advocates do not excuse the failure of leadership on the issues they care about. Advocates ADVOCATE for the issues they care about They do not worry about being "fair."

In essence, the Welshman chose to be an advocate for PELOSI, not for progressive issues. This is a variation of the Cult of Personality that infects the Presidential primary season. The Welshman demonstrates the flip side of the coin of Hillary Hate. It is an Apologia for a Politician. It demonstrates another aspect of what ails the Netroots.

This comment in the thread demonstrates some of the muddled thinking:

Perhaps because it's one of my own preoccupations, this points me back again to the difference between movement and electoral politics. That's a difference that's often not seen (or at least not remarked upon) by people at this site; why I don't fully know, though I have some guesses.

It's a distinction DHinMI made the other night:

The second thing to keep in mind is that unions don't exist and thrive so they can do politics, they do politics so they can exist and hopefully thrive.

And one I see here in this diary:

She did not dismiss, insultingly or otherwise "anti-war progressives and moderates". Those who read the article will find no such emotive colouring of her comment. She made a simple statement of fact - a simple reminder of the reality of political life. We are indeed advocates, we do not have to compromise in the way that our leaders do, because they have the responsibility of treading through the entanglement of the political web. If there is a need to gently remind us of this fact, then we should not react like it is two years before we have come to understand the difficulties of exercising political power in our countries by condemning out of hand those to whom we entrust this task.

Sometimes we have to batter at the walls of these distinctions, but assailing people for acting as they should given their roles in this, whether as leaders or as advocates, is counterproductive.

Whatever respect the commenter is giving to Pelosi's role, she has completely disrespected the role of the advocate.

The end of her comment makes no sense to me:

Sometimes we have to batter at the walls of these distinctions, but assailing people for acting as they should given their roles in this, whether as leaders or as advocates, is counterproductive.

Sometimes we have to batter the walls of these distinctions but when we do it is counterproductive? The proper insight I think is to say that unions do politics to achieve their ends - not to be Democrats. Not to defend Nancy Pelosi.

Think of it this way. Think of us as a union whose only objective is to end the Iraq War. This is just an example.

Should we be defending Pelosi's performance if our goal is to end the Iraq war? Or we it be more productive for us to criticize her and pressure her? I think the answer is obvious. Pressure, not rationalization, will be more effective.

The attitude displayed is emblematic of the identity crisis suffered by the Netroots.