It's a variety of hero worship that singles out the manly, battle-hardened, John Wayne type, and yes, gender does enter in there.  Paul Hackett was the beneficiary of this sort of sentiment as well.

I think he became a pol the second he decided to run for office.

Just to add I think his description of blogs is pretty right on except for one thing.  One person providing a fact check can get drowned out by a piling on effect and the overriding need to push memes.  Peer review on the Internet all to often devolves into mob rule.

Wrong on FISA.
Phony economic populist who voted for the Peru "Free" Trade Deal
Now he's going to lead the effort to capitulate on drilling

But the real point of my post is pols are pols. ... They do what they do. NONE of them are your friend. Falling into spells of admiration for them is simply ridiculous and counterproductive - if you care about issues that is.

... and half (or more) of the country's voters still won't listen, or even consider it.

Elections at all levels have become vanity and popularity contests. I've pretty much lost all hope in our political system. What's the point, really?

I thought I lost it in 2003, but I actually found some of it back last year, and hoped to regain all of it at the end of this year.

With the two boneheads -- oops, I mean Pols -- running for President now, what hope is there? It's always a case of hold-your-nose and vote-for-the-lesser-of-two-evils. I just won't be voting this time.

Re: blogs. Politicians are like celebrities. They use the blogs and the media when it's to their advantage/gain, and rail against them when their feet are held to the fire. But, I actually prefer this group of pols to the group that doesn't give two hoots about anything that anyone has to say.

Listen, I don't claim to be an expert of FISA, and I am certainly not privy to the classified information that only a few people in the Congress were allowed to see, but as an American citizen whose right to privacy - among others - is protected by the Constitution, and who depends on those in the Congress to be stewards of my Constitutional rights and privileges, I am angry that those rights are being sacrificed to bad legislation at the behest of someone - Bush - who has - from Day One - made appropriating power for himself his top priority.

When people talk about "balancing" privacy rights with national security concerns, what they are really saying is that we have to undermine those rights so that they are on the same level with national security.  Why isn't the conversation and the debate about maintaining the higher stature of those rights?  Wasn't that why the original 1978 FISA was enacted - so that we could preserve the integrity and importance of these rights over the government's desire for information?

We are leaders. They are advocates

What I make out of it is they place too much emphasis on controlling the outcome and have a distrust and lack of respect for voters. Webb appears to think that voters are not capable of understanding the complex issues of governing. He says do not make rash decisions but offers nothing to voters to make a decision.

Too often elections are treated by the media, pundits, blogs and the people like they are choosing a date for the prom.  

Instead it should be done with the vigor a parent should approach those who may spend time watching their kids.

We do not have a Direct Democracy. We elect politicians to represent us - not vote based on polls. Sometimes we will disagree with them. Hopefully, they will vote in a conscientious manner and not violate flat-out promises they made while campaigning. Hopefully, when they are campaigning, they will only make promises that reflect their true values. But sometimes they will surprise us. They know things we don't - they have teams of people who do nothing but study issues and brief them, and they have access to classified information we do not have.

But what's it all for?

If you are a Democrat, is Obama your transportation to good government and progressive politics?  Or...are you his transportation to ultimate power to.....

...to what?  To do what?  What are the issues he cares enough about to fight for...and are any of them in sync with traditional Democratic issues?  Are they?

For the person who was speaking of the R's going so far right that guys like Webb are Dems, think about this:

The R's may not handle our money wisely but they know how to win hearts and minds, to the tune of getting people to vote against their own interests.  That said, the idea that the USA is a center-right country gains traction when the Dems move right and center. A sinister GOP trick?  Who's to say?

There are no more Paul Wellstones(I LOVED PW!) It's sad that we are at this point in politics that there are no REAL progressive leaders (although Feingold and Boxer come pretty close for me), that we are settling for the likes of Webb.

There was an episode of the Golden Girls pre-Bill Clinton where the girls had a dog they were caring for.  Betty White tells them the dog is a hunting dog.  Sophia(Estelle Getty's character) tells the dog, "Go out and find us a DEMOCRAT that can WIN to run for president!"  The crowd roared in approval.

I also disagree with him about the negative aspect of anonymity with respect to people, like myself, who have an opportunity to express an opinion without identifying themselves.

To me, there is no downside. I read what people have to say. I don't need to know who they are and where they live. I can evaluate the content.

And - in this day and age, anonymity allows people to express opinions that they would not otherwise. The government, as we know, is looking over our shoulders and does not take kindly to any criticism. Retribution against people who express opinions that do not coincide with the current lines being given us by the folks in Washington is not exactly unknown. Valerie Plame - anyone?

I've never been that big a fan of Webb's -- I hope Dems can do better than electing Reagan Republicans.  But on a matter like FISA I'd probably trust Webb more than most other Congress members to balance security and civil rights concerns.

"They think they know what's right and everyone else is wrong on everything," groused one senior Senate Democratic aide. "They are kind of insufferable at this point."

Among the grievances described by Democratic leadership insiders:

• Until a mailing that went out in the past few days, Obama had done little fundraising for Democratic candidates since signing off on e-mailed fundraising appeals for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee immediately after securing the Democratic nomination.

• Obama has sometimes appeared in members' districts with no advance notice to lawmakers, resulting in lost opportunities for those Democrats to score points by appearing alongside their party's presumptive presidential nominee.

• The Obama campaign has not, until very recently, coordinated a daily message with congressional Democrats, leaving Democratic members in the lurch when they're asked to comment on the constant back and forth between Obama and John McCain -- as they were when Obama said earlier this month that he would "continue to refine" his Iraq policies after meeting with commanders on the ground there.

• Coordination between the Obama campaign and the House and Senate leadership is so weak that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) -- who will chair the Democrats' convention in August -- didn't know of Obama's decision to move his final-night acceptance speech from the Pepsi Center to Invesco Field until the campaign announced it on a conference call with reporters.

John Siceloff and David Brancaccio of PBS's NOW, tell how unlikely activists have worked for change in their communities all across the U.S. Their new book is Your America: Democracy's Local Heroes.

It's about individuals who have become passionately interested in something, some needed change, and their work to achieve it.

The comment that grabbed me is Brancaccio saying that when people protest, they are asking Mr. Politician to please do something about this for me. The people featured on the PBS Now program and in the book took matters into their own hands, came to feel empowered, and went to pols and officials and said we've done this, you must do X and Y.

I know: Sounds simple. But it was an interesting analysis. Protest is simply asking--the authors say they're featuring people who have demanded and told the pols what to do.

Well, not sure how to do that on our issues, from Dem rule committee to BushCo's wars....

Amazing.

Usually you would expect a politician to stop at "blogs are bad because bloggers are irresponsible" without continuing on to the second part, and it shows his understanding of the self-correcting nature of the internet.

Your takeaway is "politicians don't like you, blogger", but I think the more interesting point here is that "some politicians actually understand the internet".

He's afraid to havet he spotlight on him on certain issues.  Issues, not surprisingly, where he can't logically argue his position, and with FISA his position is fear trumps rights, period.
He's afraid, so afraid he's willing to compromise the fourth amendment.  Why can't he just say he's scared?  Not manly enough.