It's better, I suppose…

…to be squabbling about credit rather than blame, but there's a risk that the quest for credit could become as internally destructive to Democrats as the current blame game is proving to be for Republicans. It's laudable of Atrios to declare that "I really don't care who gets "credit." I just know that it's silly to set this up as a competition…", but why not stop there? Why this?

"…some of the hostility you see from some in the party organizations to the "netroots" is absurd."

I mean, if it's so, which Party organizations? And who in them?

Not the DNC, certainly. Chairman Dean, after all, is the front man for the '50 State Strategy' that so much of the blogosphere would like credit for, though it's really a creation of the State Chairs who were, far more than any bloggers, the architects of the Dean Chairmanship after he adopted their priorities.

I know Rahm Emmanuel is a current prime target for 'netroots' antagonism, but he's the one who broke with recent precedent and decided very early to expand the field to three times the number of targets required for a majority. He continued to expand the the DCCC targets throughout the election as campaigners (Peter Goldmark is a notable example) proved their bona fides, even though they may have remained longshots. Beyond that, the DCCC has run one of the most open and able internet shops in Democratic politics for a couple of cycles now (howdy, Jesse!). No, not there.

The DSCC, maybe? Not that I can see. They've only expanded their outreach, in my experience, and improved their online operation to a degree that gives serious challenge to their House counterparts.

State Parties? Maybe some, somewhere, though I read tons of local and regional blogs, and I haven't seen any particular complaints. It's certainly not true here in the Upper Left, where regional bloggers have been embraced and encouraged by Chairman Dwight Pelz and his team.

If anything, the Party organizations have been more than gracious, in my experience, despite the fact that that graciousness hasn't always been reciprocated. To believe some of the bloggers out there, for instance, you'd think that Rahm deliberately tried to throw the election just to spite them.

Of course, part of the problem is the tendency of some of the A-listers to speak ex-cathedra, as though everyone who logs in is lined up in lock step. Duncan is less guilty of that particular tendency than most of his cohort, but he can still slip. For example...

As for Lamont/Lieberman, well, that sucks, but a big reason we all supported a run against Joe was to force the party to Start Talking About the War.

Who, exactly, is this "we all." I mean, I may be small potatoes in the world of Kos, Atrios and the MyDD crew, but I have a blog, and I supported Ned Lamont's primary challenge, and that wasn't my reason at all. I was just sick to death of Joe's sanctimonious apologies for and accusation aimed at his fellow partisans. Maybe that's because I'm part of the Party, and I was talking about the war, and I was listening to the Party and I heard lots of talk about the war from folks like Jack Murtha, Nancy Pelosi and, of course, that Kerry fella.

In fact, "we all" aren't unanimous on very much, really, except that Democrats, generally, are preferable to Republicans. Just watch the race for '08 heat up and see how much real divergence "we all" are capable of.

For now, the only election I'm claiming credit for is the largely unheralded and totally unopposed race for Precinct Committee Officer in SH 32-0558. Hey, I did fill out the form, after all.

And blame? Screw blame. We won. I'm still celebrating.