So what is Netroots Nation about?  Is it just about the conference, and the thrill of once a year seeing a virtual community become physically manifest?  Is it about the panels?  the volunteer activities?  the drinking?  the late night poker games we may have forgotten to invite you to?  Is it all just a set-up that allows me to play Alex Trebek once a year?

Yes to all of that, of course, but there's also the substance -- it's about figuring out how to use technology to influence the public debate.  Each of us.  We have real power -- to promote candidates, to pressure candidates to pass legislation, to change hearts and minds and, ultimately, the world.

Through the annual Netroots Nation convention -- and starting this month, through a series of regional salons that will be held throughout all year long -- we want to strengthen our community, inspire action and serve as an incubator for ideas that challenge the status quo and ultimately affect change in the public sphere.

Those same values are the basis for Markos Moulitsas Zúniga's forthcoming book (as in, "this week"), "Taking on the System: Rules for Radical Change in a Digital Era." **

[You may know him as "Kos".]

For our first Netroots Nation regional event, to be held this Wednesday night in San Francisco, we're doing something new: We're kicking off the release of Markos' book tour, and we want to give you a chance to be part of the experience. Markos isn't touring like he did last time around, but you can still get your signed copy of the book now.

Join our virtual host committee for a donation of $125 to Netroots Nation, and we'll send you a signed copy of "Taking on the System."

Obvs, Markos knows how it's done -- how to take grassroots energy, apply technology and make change happen. In this book, he shares practical guidelines on how grassroots movements can thrive in the age of global information.

Will you help us kick off the release of this important book and support the mission of Netroots Nation?  Or would you rather just harness the power of the Internet to learn about cakes gone badly and let Jerome Corsi dominate the bestseller list?  

[** Full disclosure: Yes, as most of you know, Markos is a client of mine.  No, he didn't ask me to write this.  But I am chairman of the board of directors of Netroots Nation.]

Wednesday's Philadelphia Daily News reported the findings of a new Keystone Poll as follows:

Poll: Obama leads in Pa., but not by much

Obama leads McCain by eight points, 44 percent to 36 percent among registered voters, and by five points, 46 percent to 41 percent, among likely voters.

Poll director Terry Madonna said that the survey shows that Obama hasn't been able to pull away despite signs it should be a big Democratic year in Pennsylvania.

It's utter bullshit.  Barack Obama -- based on this poll's own raw data -- actually leads John McCain among registered voters by thirteen and among likely voters by a ten point margin.  Let me explain.

The key is sample demographics, and this something on which I've criticized the Keystone Poll for more than three years.   The poll, which is run by Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, PA, consistently oversamples its Republican part of the state, undersamples pro-Democratic Philadelphia and the Southeast, and produces results that are always skewed against Democrats.  When I called once to ask them if they corrected for turnout, the response was "we can't predict turnout."

And that's just false, and lazy.  The Keystone Poll has the following regional sample:

I now have a final few questions for statistical purposes only.
CNTY. Region of state (What is the name of the county you live in?)

35% Central
15% Southeast
14% Northeast
11% Allegheny
10% Southwest
8% Northwest
7% Philadelphia

Here, by way of comparison, is the 2004 CNN Exit Poll breakdown of the Pennsylvania vote:

VOTE BY REGION  

Philadelphia (12%)
Phila. Suburbs (21%)
Northeastern Pa. (14%)
Pittsburgh Area (23%)
Central/North Tier (30%)

[Based on Keystone's regional definitions, Phila. Suburbs = "Southeast", Pittsburgh Area = "Allegheny" + "Southwest", and "Central/North Tier" = Keystone's "Central" + "Northwest".]

The 2006 PA-SEN and PA-GOV race had almost the same breakdown.  Now, you see the problem: Philadelphia and its suburbs should be 33% of the sample instead of 22%, Central and Northwest PA should be at 30%, and instead takes up 43% of the state.  That's a pretty big swing between what Keystone polled and how Pennsylvania actually votes.

How big?  The math's not hard.  (Okay, granted: I'm a former high school mathlete.)  If you take the regional breakdown that Keystone provides -- at the bottom of page 9, Table A-1, and multiply the results for each region by the percentages in the 2004 exit poll breakdown, you can extrapolate out a new set of results re-weighted to actual 2004-06 turnout.  

This GoogleDoc shows my calculations, and the result is instead of a 44%-36% lead among registered voters, Obama actually leads 47%-34%.  

And if that lead expands from 8% to 13%, then it is reasonable to believe that Obama's lead among likely voters is not six percent, but is actually closer to ten percent, about 48% to 38% over McCain.  Terry Madonna, please do a better job next time.

One more thing:  In 2004, George Bush beat John Kerry 63%-37% in the Central & Northern Tier.  If Barack Obama is only trailing McCain by a point or two in these traditionally Republican areas, the Pennsylvania race is over.  He's going to come out of Philadelphia alone with a 400,000 vote lead, and there will be no way for McCain to catch up.  None.  

Those of you with long memories or wonky fixations will recall our years-long push to force Senate candidates to file their FEC disclosure reports electronically and bring them into the 21st century.  It's beyond ridiculous that we haven't eliminated this convoluted mess, as I explained last September:

Let's remember what it's all about: it costs taxpayers about $250,000 a year for a private Virginia contractor to convert the Senate paper filings -- which are created by the campaigns using computers and software -- back into electronic format for the FEC to post on its Web site. The conversions take anywhere from 18 to 27 days to complete, which means that most of the last campaign filings for the Senate do not become electronically available on the FEC website until after the election.

So the Republican Leader in the Senate and the head of the Senate Republicans' campaign committee are conspiring to not only block more timely disclosure in campaign finance, but also to try and stymie the ethics woes that they face.  Indeed, as Dennis Green said, they are who we thought they were.

Sen. Feingold has more to say.  

As mentioned above, it's NRSC chairman Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) who was gumming the works with procedural nonsense.  It's time to route around him.

Our friends at the Sunlight Foundation, Change Congress, Public Campaign and other pro-technology, pro-transparency reform organizations have launched a new wikified tool to make it happen: Pass223.com.

The website is simple -- it tells you where your Senators stand on the bill and on Sen. Ensign's opposition, and how many calls have been made to each Senator.  Click on your Senators' names, and it will pull up a phone script tailored to where s/he stands on both the underlying bill and Sen. Ensign's attempts to derail it.  Make the call, report the response on the website, repeat with your other Senator.

It should just take a few hours for the readers of this site to steamroll through this electronic whip sheet and obtain the information needed on all 100 Senators.  Then, we can start applying pressure where needed.

Can you make two calls today to bring greater transparency to the Senate?

Yesterday, we reviewed Lawrence Lessig's diagnosis that Congress needed fundamental change because the influence of money has corroded our ability to trust the institution to get the "2+2=4" basic policy decisions right.  (His NN08 keynote is online here and here.)

Today, let's talk about solutions, and the Change Congress movement he and Joe Trippi founded is organized around four principles:

1. No money from lobbyists or PACs

2. Vote to end earmarks

3. Support reform to increase Congressional transparency

4. Support publicly-financed campaigns

Nos. 1 and 4 deal with the supply of money in politics; No. 2 works on the demand side.  (Put most simply, if you want to reduce aggregated wealth's influence on politics, reduce what it can buy from politics.)  And No. 3 helps provide us with the information to know if 1, 2 and 4 are working.

How is it implemented?  Lessig writes, collecting his thoughts from the live presentation:

This movement begins small. It collects Members, candidates and citizens who pledge themselves to a platform of reform. (The first Member to take the pledge was Congressman Jim Cooper of Tennessee. A gaggle of challengers in the current cycle have taken the pledge to signal how they would be different from the incumbent.) Using wiki-like tools, volunteers will then tag every representative, to map where they stand on core issues of reform. And finally, an Emily’s list like tool will direct money to candidates who support reform, building upon the insight that Madison thought he had perfected — creating the incentive for Members to act to support the good.

Four steps to break the dependence lawmakers have on their funders.  Four steps, using tools we already employ in our netroots activism, to elevate Congress from it's current 9% approval rating:

This cycle of distrust signals something important about any successful strategy for reform: that it must come from the outside, ideally from people who have no interest in being on the inside. Citizens fit that description; so too may "citizen candidates." Imagine non-politicians challenging sitting Members of Congress, not with the expectation of winning, but with the aim of raising the cost of failing to pledge to fundamental reform by making this single issue the single issue of the campaign. The threat itself makes the pledge more credible. Fifty such threats over two or three election cycles could fundamentally reform the institution.

Such reform is the aim of Change Congress. We will pursue it by demanding of incumbents, or those who seek to be incumbents, a commitment to clear principles of change. We will enforce it by deploying an army of wiki-workers to monitor and hold accountable Members who deviate from that commitment. And we will achieve it by building an endless repertoire of examples of government misfiring because of this dependency on money. There are examples that will connect to every citizen. If we can connect these examples to a plausible path for change, then these citizens can do the rest. Because regardless of what other dependencies have accreted into the system we call Congress, dependency upon "the People" still remains.

People may think that such change is impossible, but to me the example of the 1990s term limits movement (a largely right-wing and Perotist push) suggests that a reform-oriented citizen activist movement can force legislators to embrace structural change.  Or even, argues Lessig, a revolution:

We think of "revolutions" as fundamental change. But they saw revolutions (as the word more clearly suggests) as a return to founding, or true principles. Jefferson’s election got the country back to the Republican values of 1776 -- or so he thought. (John Adams had a different view.) It was a "revolution" because it restored ideals deemed fundamental.

It is in this sense precisely that we too need a revolution. And it is in this sense precisely that we too need a new "Declaration of Independence." Not independence from some colonial power. And not independence from all power. But independence from the dependency that has now overwhelmed our Congress. Independence from the improper dependence on private campaign funding, so as to return to a more perfect dependence upon "the People."

So here's the questions: (1) Would these steps restore trust in government?, (2) Can they be implemented?, and (3) What will you do to change Congress?

For those who didn't see Prof. Lawrence Lessig's Saturday afternoon keynote address at Netroots Nation, set aside some time and watch it here:

Free live streaming by Ustream

(Only, for reals?  Skip my intro.  Not me at my most polished.  Also, you can download the talk as a free podcast on iTunes -- video, or audio only.)

So we're a week later now and it's high time we actually talked about whether his Change Congress movement is correct as to both diagnosis and cure.  Let's focus on diagnosis today.

The diagnosis is that Congress' current 9% approval rating stems from a fundamental belief that political money has corrupted trust.  Lessig writes:

Congress’s "credit" is "forfeit" because of a profoundly deep sense among most that the machine that Congress is is simply bent. Like a rigged slot machine at a casino, or a balance sheet by the Enron accounting department, the vast majority of Americans don’t believe that the answers Congress gives are the right answers for the right reasons.

Most believe that they track something else entirely: not sense but dollars. And not the dollars of an illegal bribe (though no doubt, too many believe this too), but the dollars that fund the essential element of congressional tenure—campaign contributions.

America’s view of Congress’s behavior is not likely correct. Political scientists are almost unanimous in their judgment that there is no simple quid-pro-quo to what Congress does. If there is improper influence, it is far less direct, or obvious. Any improper influence is well hidden in the web of relationships that power attracts.

But this is one of those crucial contexts in which perception is reality. Congress is bankrupt because the people see it so.

And so, Lessig explains, Congress gets wrong the "2+2=4" simple decisions it should be making, whether it is on taking some action against global warming, the "no-brainer" of opposing the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, etc.  Decisions for which the science and policy arguments are clear, where there are right and wrong answers, yet Congress always gets it wrong.

How important is this problem of political corruption? I find the metaphor Lessig uses here to be of exceptional power:

For I’ve come to believe that this isn’t just one among a number of important issues. It is the issue. It is the single issue we need to solve if every other important issue is going to have a chance of being solved sensibly. The dependency of modern campaign finance is the single most important cause of the bankruptcy of Congress. Fixing this bankruptcy is the single most important reform effort that Americans face just now.

That’s not to say there aren’t other, extraordinarily important issues that America faces. Of course there are. Global warming is at the top of my list. The peace in Iraq may be at the top of yours. But fixing the bankruptcy that is Congress is the first step to solving these other issues. Without this first step, the other reform simply won’t happen.

Think of it like this: We’ve all known, or been harmed by, or harmed others as an alcoholic. We all therefore understand something about this particular dependency. One thing we understand is this. An alcoholic might face many critical problems. He might be losing his job, his marriage, and his liver. All three of those are among the worst possible problems a person could face. But we know he won’t begin to solve those problems until he deals with his alcoholism. Alcoholism isn’t the most important problem in the mix. It’s just the first problem. It’s the problem that must be solved before anything else can get solved.

Tomorrow, we'll talk about the cure.  For today, does Prof. Lessig have the diagnosis right as to why a Democratic-led Congress isn't getting the job done?

As chairman of the Netroots Nation Board of Directors, I've already open things for one round of feedback this week, but it's the weekend and you may have even more to say now with more time to detox.  Or you may not have been around when I did it.

Anyway, there's a few issues I want to really get people thinking about while they're still fresh, things we're tossing around on GetSatisfaction but which can bear more analysis here.

If you have any thoughts on any of these issues (or anything else), please share:

• The schedule, horizontally and vertically.  By "horizontally," I mean "are there too many sessions in each timeslot?", and vertically refers to the number of sessions per day we're holding.  Clearly,  Saturday could have worked out better, but I'm wondering more globally as to whether people are just overwhelmed by what's going on and feel like they're missing too much and just end up exhausted every day.
• Related schedule question: do you like what we do on Thursdays with caucuses and workshops all day, or should we be introducing substantive panels and discussions that day as well?  And, for that matter, what will it take to get you to stick around on Sunday?
• Diversity.  We know it's important. I'm glad we were able to provide prime slots to leaders like Nancy Pelosi, Donna Edwards and Van Jones, and to have so many top-flight bloggers of color and women bloggers on our panels, but we can do more to have speakers and an audience that's more broadly representative of the online (and offline) progressive political community.  Tell us specific things we should look to do.
• The exhibit hall.  Did you go?  Did you enjoy?
• The panels themselves -- did you like the formats?  Did you feel like there was a fair balance of panelist participation and the audience's voices?  Were things too formal? informal? just too awesome?
• Green issues.  We've heard you on the amount of paper in the registration bags, on issues with recycling/composting of lunches, and have heard smart suggestions on encouraging a sponsor to provide reusable water bottles next year.  What else can we be doing to minimize our impact?

This is just a partial list.  But we want you in Pittsburgh next August, and we'd love to know how to make your experience even better.

[If there are topics you'd prefer to discuss privately, reach me anytime at adam (at) netrootsnation [dot] org.]

Editor's Note: I've been sitting on this long enough; there's just too much important stuff going on this week to clutter the FP with it.  If you like it, if you want others to see it, rec it up.  I am indebted to kath25 and all who helped administer the fun. --Adam

Second verse, same as the first, a whole lot louder and significantly more inebriated, about 200 of you packed into Champions - Austin last Friday during happy hour to participate in Netroots Nation's Pub Quiz ][.  The event was won by the Sea Org team, comprised of, sigh, some this site's front pagers and notables -- brownsox, Kagro X, ct, DavidNYC and Trapper John -- plus SSP's Ben, Trent and James.

Rules were the same as always -- no Google, no CrackBerries, no cell phones -- just your brain and your teammates.  Here's the questions:

Round One -- Primary Trivia (1 pt each)

1. Which candidate claimed in a debate, when asked about his/her biggest flaw, "I'm impatient. I try to change [things] too rapidly. I'm too aggressive"?

2. Which candidate said at his or her YouTube debate, in response to an immigration question, "We're a better country than to punish children for what their parents did. We're a better country than that."

3. For what Super Tuesday primary vote were the winners Clinton and Romney?

4. Three different women served as assistant district attorneys to Jack McCoy while Arthur Branch (played by Fred Thompson) was the fictional Manhattan DA.  Name the actresses. (1pt each, max of 3pts).

5. In response to questions about his poor electoral prospects, Mike Huckabee said, "I didn’t major in math; I majored in ... " what?

6. Rudy Giuliani staked his whole campaign on Florida.  In what place did he finish in the Florida primary?

7. Who’s the tallest person in the "Yes We Can" video?

8. Everybody remembers Mitt Romney and his five sons, and everyone remembers Tagg, of course.  Name one other Romney boy. (1pt only)

9. Which Presidential candidate went to Louisville for law school?  

10. Leaving aside the District of Columbia, in what state did Barack Obama gain the highest percentage of the vote in a primary (non caucus) election?

11. On 2/8/07, John Edwards announced that Amanda Marcotte’s job as a campaign blogger was safe.  Two days later, she posted a movie review on her site in which she discussed  how "the Christian version of the virgin birth [was] generally interpreted as super-patriarchal," which led to her resignation from the campaign.  What movie was she reviewing?

12. Prior to the 2008 Kentucky Derby, Hillary Clinton expressed her support for one horse, though things didn’t do so well for it.  Name the horse.

At this point, the Terrorist Fist Jab team declared that whatever the results were, they got all the questions right that mattered.

Round 2 -- Texas Time. (2pts each)

1. Name the only person to serve as President of the Republic of Texas, Senator from Texas and Governor of Texas.

2. What was Lady Bird Johnson’s full maiden name?

3. If you've read your Caro (and if not, shame on you), you know the name of the popular Texas Governor who LBJ defeated in 1948 Democratic Senate primary.

4. Who is generally known as the "Father of Texas"?

5. Texas gained its independence from Mexico in what year?

6. In 1865, John Stetson opened his haberdashery business, and by 1886 he had the largest hat factory in the world.  In what great U.S. city did this take place?

7. Three men served as LBJ’s Attorney General.  RFK is the easy one.  1pt for each of the other two.

8. What recent TX gubernatorial candidate promised, "I'll keep us out of war with Oklahoma!"

9. The pilot of "Walker, Texas Ranger" takes its name from what slogan about the Texas Rangers?

10. Which Texas politician famously referred to the Vice Presidency as being "worth less than a warm pitcher of spit?"

11. In 2009, we’ll have a new "southernmost presidential birthplace," no matter who wins in November, but until then which Texas town still claims the prize?

12. Hey, what Dallas character did shoot JR?

At this point, the Terrorist Fist Jab team declared that they were lending themselves 20 points that they'd repay later.

Round 3 -- Who's the Boss?  I'll name the entity, you tell us who's in charge (3pts each).

1. Committee on House Administration - House Franking Commission

2. Senate Select Committee on Aging

3. Delaware

4. Pittsburgh, PA.  **

5. EMILY’s List (executive director)

6. Communications Workers of America

7. South Africa

8. Ecuador

9. Prime Minister, Japan

10. President, Ukraine

** Ha!  No one noticed I told you where NN09 would be, one day early!

At this point, the Terrorist Fist Jab team offered to turn all their points over to the leading team for the right to serve as its Vice-Champion.

Finally, the super-duper six point bonus question that no one got because you wouldn't believe the answer anyway:

Who is the longest-ago former U.S. President who still has a living grandchild?

That answer is here; the rest you all can figure out on your own.

Also: the New York Observer was there, and so too was a video crew.  Here's their take on the event:

Yes, there will be a Pub Quiz /// in Pittsburgh.  Start studying!

Sen. Joseph Lieberman spoke at the Hagee "summit" yesterday, as Think Progress notes:

Lieberman again drew a parallel between Hagee and biblical figures, this time saying biblical heroes, unlike the demigods of Greek mythology, "are humans — great humans, but with human failings." Lieberman said that Moses had his shortcomings, too.

"Dear friends, I can only imagine what the bloggers of today would have had to say about Moses and Miriam."

Funny you should ask:

Markos Moulitsas: "He promised us snakes would lead to our liberation.  Well, Pharaoh's still in charge.  We need More and Better Hebrews!"

Atrios:  "Moses said we'd be out of Egypt after one plague.  We're already Nine Plague Units into this with no end in sight."

Mike Stark: "I am going to go to Pharaoh's house with a big roll of papyrus to confront him about his former slaves."

Chris Bowers: "The last three polls all say that Pharaoh's vulnerable, so I believe Moses can take a more aggressive stand.  Praise Joshua and let him know."

FDL: "Take a look at these stones Miriam just inscribed for us that detail her journey -- it's not getting enough attention.  She'll be here to answer questions in our Tablet Club after sunrise on Sunday."

Howie Klein: "I'm already running pro-Aaron hieroglyphs in Moses' camp."

Matt Stoller: "If Moses doesn't beseech Hashem to deliver us something other than manna to eat, he should be primaried."

Big Tent Democrat: "Jethro has too much influence over Moses' judicial appointments."

Jeffrey Feldman: "If I'm Aaron, I'd be using this Golden Calf symbol everywhere I could.  It's the icon that coalesces the needs of the Hebrews in the wilderness."

FiveThirtyEight.com:  "I've checked out the demographics; look for the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin to make real gains in Moses' new census."

And from across the Red Sea:

NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "A totally crazy Shabbas thought: Wouldn't Ramses make an awesome high-school government teacher?"

Look, okay, I am fully up front about the fact that I am wholly biased when it comes to freshman Rep. Patrick Murphy (PA-8). I'm proud to call him a friend, but if possible, even prouder today.

For the first time since the policy was implemented in 1993, the House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee held a hearing today to review the disgraceful "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy which prevents GLBT Americans from serving openly in our armed forces.  One of the witnesses was Elaine Donnelly, President of the "Center for Military Readiness," who Pam Spaulding has properly identified as someone who "has never served in the military, and admits she has no qualifications or expertise on sexuality."

And after her inane testimony, Congress' only Iraq veteran was ready:

Let's remember the facts:

• Nearly 800 specialists with critical skills have been fired from the military under DADT, including several linguists who speak Arabic.
• U.S. taxpayers have paid $250 million to investigate and root out patriotic servicemen and women under DADT and as much as $1.2 billion in lost recruiting and training costs.
• More than two-thirds of civilians support allowing gays to serve openly in the military. And despite the fear-mongering about unit morale, nearly 3 in 4 troops say they are personally comfortable serving side-by-side with gays and lesbians.

More on today's hearing here.  DADT must end. Period.  Full stop.

(From the diaries -- SusanG)

I hope you enjoyed Austin as much as I did.  I hope your memories of the panels, the events and of each other are as fond and fresh as mine are, and that you are as energized as I am (well, maybe after more sleep) to take what you've learned and convert it into action, and to take all those business cards and email addresses you've accumulated and turn them into lasting relationships.

Right now, there's something else I'd like you to do, and it's absolutely essential for the enduring success of this conference.  You need to tell us what worked, and what didn't work.  

As chairman of the board of directors for NN, I need to know what you think.  You are our stakeholders, our constituents, and your satisfaction is essential to our continued success.  There is no aspect of this conference which cannot be rethought, and no detail not worth mentioning.  And, obviously, we don't want to forget anything that worked out better than our wildest expectations, and want to capture as much of that now while it's still fresh in your minds.

We've got a few ways you can register this feedback.  First off, we've set up an Online Feedback tool that you can use to post your thoughts and receive direct feedback from our staff.

Secondly, um, here.  I think you know how to do that.

And thirdly, if you'd like to keep it private, email me at adam [at] netrootsnation [dot] org.  I will make sure every email gets to the appropriate person(s) on our staff, and that each receives a response.

Finally, if you didn't hear it yet: we're going to Pittsburgh next year!  I am so excited to bring Netroots Nation to the Northeast, for our greenest conference ever (also: union-friendly!), and yinz are going to love coming to the Keystone State.  We are so excited that we've already opened registration, and a limited number of $175 tickets are available.  Once they're gone, they're gone, and the price goes up to $225.  And then more.  So if you're ready to join us in Pittsburgh from August 13-16, 2009, then register now.

Okay, fine: General Wesley Clark will be speaking as part of Thursday night's Netroots Nation opening plenary.  Says General Clark, who'll be returning for his third year:

"The progressive Netroots community is a critical force for positive change, working tirelessly to put America back on track after seven-plus years of failed right-wing policies," said Clark. "Without the progressive blogosphere, I wouldn’t have run for President in 2004, and I couldn’t continue to speak out and fight for the issues we believe in.

"Netroots Nation will give our community a great opportunity to re-connect in person, exchange ideas, and mobilize for the important political battles we face in the weeks and months ahead. It will also give me, personally, a chance to thank you for all of your help and support, especially recently. I look forward to seeing everyone in Austin and being a part of this historic gathering."

This follows on the heels of yesterday's announcement that former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman will be joining us Friday morning in Exhibit Hall 4 as part of a block of programming on the Bush Administration's perversion of the administration of justice in America, and what's to be done about it starting January 20, 2009.  

Also in case you missed it: netroots hero Rep. Donna Edwards will be giving a Saturday night keynote speech.

If we've finally reached the tipping point that sends you to Austin, awesome: you can still register today.  If you're already coming, see you there!

Left In Alabama had the scoop yesterday: former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman  will be joining us Friday morning at Netroots Nation to discuss his case.

Perhaps you recall the 60 Minutes piece on Gov. Siegelman:

"I haven't seen a case with this many red flags on it that pointed towards a real injustice being done," says Grant Woods, the former Republican attorney general of Arizona.

Woods is one of the 52 former state attorneys-general, of both parties, who’ve asked Congress to investigate the Siegelman case.

"I personally believe that what happened here is that they targeted Don Siegelman because they could not beat him fair and square. This was a Republican state and he was the one Democrat they could never get rid of," Woods says.

Kagro X reviewed the key elements back in February, and Scott Horton of Harper's has a wealth of detail.  Basically, Siegelman was the one Democrat in Alabama whom Republicans could never defeat at the ballot box, so Karl Rove used every means at his disposal to ruin Siegelman, from attempting to secure photos of marital infidelity (he committed none) to, ultimately, turning the Department of Justice into a political wing of the Bush-Cheney Administration bent on destroying Democrats by pressing trumped-up corruption charges against him.  Kagro X:

This really demonstrates the lengths to which Bush-Cheney's hyper-politicized Department of Justice can go. If they can railroad the actual governor of a state into prison and have pretty much nobody really sit up and take notice, what does that say about the extent of the damage to the country? Not just the DOJ (which is a goner), but about the supposed watchdogs of the media, who've been in large part either cowed into silence, or distracted by an endless stream of shiny objects?

Seriously, this means they can do this to anybody.

But worse than that, it means that anybody who finds themselves under scrutiny by the federal government now has license to charge that they're being politically targeted. Because if this can happen as Horton describes it happening, all bets are off. It has all the ingredients of the complete and total undoing of all federal law enforcement capability for the foreseeable future.

Here's what Siegelman himself has said:

I think this will make Watergate look like child's play when it is fully investigated, not so much this case because certainly it's not about me. It's about restoring justice and protecting our democracy and, because this case shows the lengths to which those who are obsessed with power will go in order to gain power or retain power, it has attracted the attention of the national press. ...

It's much bigger than me because it's not just my case. This was not an isolated incident. This was a pernicious, political plan that was set in motion by Karl Rove to further his espoused dream of establishing a permanent Republican majority in this country, and what he left out was by any means necessary.

It is clear to me — and I think to those who have been investigating, and that's why they're so hot about this case — it is clear that Karl Rove abused his power and misused the Department of Justice as a political tool to win elections, and that is something that would happen in a police state. That is something that we might have read about in history books as happening in Russia, but it is not something that should be allowed to happen in the United States of America.

Don Siegelman is currently free while on appeal, and he'll join us in Austin for a conversation with Air America's Sam Seder this Friday at 10:30am in Exhibit Hall 4.   He will have much to say.  As Sam notes:

For over a year and a half now we have known of the US Attorney firings scandal that has forced the resignations of countless DOJ officials. The Siegelman case is the other side of the coin of the corruption of the Department of Justice under the Bush Administration. Those US attorney firings took place because those US Attorney's would not play ball with a DOJ hell bent on using it's powers to provide Republicans an advantage at the ballot box. Some refer to this scandal as the politicization of the Department of Justice, but the Siegelman case and other such prosecutions over the past six years go well beyond a mere infraction of the Hatch act. These cases are indicative of an agenda that has literally torn at the fabric of a nation built upon the rule of law and Justice for All. This is a corruption of the very foundations of how the United States of America is supposed function as a democracy. When the chief law enforcement agency has become crooked, who do you call?

See you there.

Last year, y'all booed Mother Theresa and got written up in the NYT.  How can we follow it up?

My friends, we will indeed have PubQuiz ][ next Friday afternoon, July 18, starting at 5pm at the Champions Sports Bar in Austin, just across the street from the Convention Center.  

In other words, our beer supply problem from last year has been solved (plus margaritas!).  Also, there will be food available.

But for the uninitiated, let's talk about the quiz itself, and I'll just self-plagiarize (and edit) from last year:

Most disagreements among the netroots cannot be easily settled -- which candidate would best bring change to Washington? What region of the country hosts the most active political grassroots? What website has the most interesting analysis?

On Friday, July 18, however, some of these scores will be settled, albeit in another realm.  During Friday's happy hour, Netroots Nation will host its second annual Political Pub Quiz, a trivia contest in the British tradition to allow teams of 4-8 to test their knowledge of current events, civics and American history in a fast-paced, fun format.  Without the aid of Google, which teams will remember the subject matter of the Gadsden Purchase, or the name of the current head of the Department of Veterans Affairs?

The event will consist on multiple themed rounds of trivia questions of increasing difficulty to test the teams' knowledge of fundamental and arcane facts.  Teams can organize on whatever basis they choose -- preferred websites, regions of the country, preferred candidates -- and we'll help you form teams onsite for unaffiliated participants to break the ice.

Prizes will be awarded for the winning teams.  They may be shiny.  More importantly is the title of "Biggest Nerds In The Blogosphere," which the winning team may trumpet until Netroots Nation 2009.

Last year's winners were Raf Noboa and the Loofahpalooza team, which bested the Calitics, MoveOn, GardenBloggers, Connecticut for Lieberman, ActBlue and other squads on these questions.

Please start organizing your teams (and bragging about their chances), and if you're with an organization or candidate that has swag which we can distribute as prizes, let me know.   Because as of now, we have none.

Also: I can't quite do this all myself, and I will need some assistants on-site.  These are some of the tasks for which I could use some help (and these responsibilities will overlap):

• Team/individual registration and assignment
• Distribution of answer sheets
• Scorekeepers
• Narcs.  I need folks to police the room to prevent the use of outside reference tools (PDAs, laptops, cellphones, etc), because no one wants to test how fast you and your friends can Google.

The Connecticut for Lieberman team's mid-tournament protest can still be viewed at this link:

Are you in?  Let us know.

There isn't much left to announce for our agenda in Austin, but we've at last been able to finalize this, and it's big.  Because when you think about Netroots victories, and "more and better Democrats," they get no better than this:

An integral part of the our movement's growth and sustainability is encouraging activists to take the next step and run for office. We at Netroots Nation aim to recognize Netroots candidates at all levels and shine a spotlight on those who organize and mobilize progressives locally.

So we welcome one of the Netroots' very own success stories, Congresswoman Donna Edwards, who will join us in Austin for a Saturday evening keynote.

With strong Netroots support, the lawyer and longtime community activist defeated 15-year incumbent Albert Wynn in the 2008 Democratic primary, and, following his resignation, won a special election to fill the remainder of his term.

As the first African-American woman to represent Maryland in Congress, she's led the way in pushing progressive values on key issues like net neutrality and the Iraq war, condemning it before it even started. So we're especially proud to recognize her tenacity and leadership during the past year.

And she's equally happy to talk with you -- the Netroots community that was so instrumental in helping to spread her message of change.

Oh, can I add telecom immunity to the list of issues on which Donna Edwards is awesome?

Registration will be closing soon.  So if you want to see Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Paul Krugman, Harold Ford, Van Jones, Larry Lessig, Digby, John Dean, Richard Clarke, Darcy Burner, Mark Begich, Rick Noriega, Dahlia Lithwick, Ashwin Madia and Donna Edwards, and so many more ... if you want the opportunity to listen to these leaders and thinkers and have them listen to you, then you need to be in Austin next week.  It will be an unforgettable four days.

Register now, and join us at Netroots Nation 2008.

Meet the Press, August 12, 2007:

MR. MOULITSAS:  ... I do agree with Harold the, that we, we do need to work together, and I hope you’ll be at next year’s YearlyKos conference...

REP. FORD:  I hope you’ll come to ours, too.

MR. MOULITSAS:  ...nicknamed -- it’s going to be called Netroots Nation, but, but what we need...

MR. GREGORY:  Would either of you go...

MR. MOULITSAS:  Yeah.

REP. FORD:  I would go.

MR. GREGORY:  ...to each other’s conventions?

MR. MOULITSAS:  I would, I would go.

REP. FORD:  I—I’d—I’ll make clear that I will be there next year.

Now:

Whose Movement?

Since its inception, one of the primary goals of the Netroots has been to examine the future of our movement.

Who are our leaders? Where should we build infrastructure?

And after last year's YearlyKos Convention, Markos went on Meet The Press to debate that very topic with Rep. Harold Ford Jr. Now, the two are meeting again at Netroots Nation for a lunchtime keynote discussion about party infrastructure.

This won't just be any keynote. This will be a chance for you to hear a casual discussion between the current chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council and a Netroots favorite. Then, you'll have a chance to ask questions of your own.

The noon session will be moderated by Arshad Hasan, Executive Director of Democracy for America.

The session's scheduled for lunch on Friday, July 18.  Will you be there?

When I announced last week that Speaker Nancy Pelosi was coming to Netroots Nation next week, there was the expected mix of enthusiasm, guarded hostility and unguarded hostility.  To be sure, after the promise of the midterm elections many in the netroots are disappointed in what Congress has (and hasn't) done over the past year and a half.  She's still coming, and I admire her greatly for that.

More importantly, Speaker Pelosi's not coming to Austin just to talk; she's coming to listen to us.  So if you have a question you'd like to ask the Speaker ... well, we've made it very easy to Ask The Speaker:

Instead of simply giving a speech at a podium, Speaker Pelosi will be taking your questions and interacting with convention attendees. The 9 a.m. keynote will be moderated by Gina Cooper, Netroots Nation's Executive Director, and Jeffrey Feldman, author and blogger. But it all begins right now, right here, when you submit your questions and vote on questions submitted by others.

Check it out -- they've set up a pretty nifty interface for all this, making it easy to submit a question and/or vote up (or down) the questions submitted by others.  Gina and Jeff will take those questions, take your votes, and they will use that to guide their conversation with her.

Netroots Nation isn't just about our hearing from the folks on the dais; it's about them hearing from us as well.  That's how we hold leaders accountable.  So Ask the Speaker a question today, and then join us in Austin to see her response.  

We've got quite an agenda planned.  Will you be a part of Netroots Nation?

This email just went out to the Netroots Nation list:

One of Netroots Nation's goals is to facilitate in-person interaction between our political leaders and the progressive community.

So we're thrilled to announce that Speaker Nancy Pelosi will join us in Austin for a Saturday morning keynote session: "Ask the Speaker."

This won't just be any keynote. Speaker Pelosi wants to hear from you. Instead of simply giving a speech at a podium, the Speaker will be taking your questions and interacting with convention attendees.

Click here to register now.

The event empowers citizens to engage America's current House leader in substantive discussion about current issues, the legislative process, and how citizens can participate in their government.

The 9 a.m. keynote will be moderated by Gina Cooper, Netroots Nation's Executive Director.

Pelosi led the charge to put Democrats back in power, and as the first female Speaker of the House, Pelosi stands as a role model for women and girls across the country.

Netroots Nation is July 17-20 in Austin, TX. So if you haven't registered, there's still time.

Click here to register now.

When you come to Netroots Nation, you don't just see the big names from afar.  I remember last year sitting outside the main ballroom, and then starting thinking, wait, is that Ned Lamont walking this way?, and had a chance to talk to him for a few minutes.  That's typical, and Netroots Nation is a remarkable opportunity to talk to so many office-holders and candidates, one-on-one.

There are so many neat panels that we can't possibly list them all.  Sure, most of the FPers here are on the agenda, but there's so much more also going on.  How about Examining the Maze of Injustice: Our Nation's Failure to Protect Indigenous Women From Violence?   Or Frederick Clarkson, Pastor Dan and others on Whatever Happened to the Religious Left?.  Or a series of panels and speeches on green issues, and if you've never met Van Jones, you need to.  Or an all-star panel with Paul Krugman, Rick Perlstein, Digby and Atrios on "How the Media Learned to Bend Over Backward to Please the Right".

Just take a look at the speakers list; it's jaw-droppingly cool.

Help build the progressive movement.  Sign up today to join us in Austin.

this just in:  Jeffrey Feldman, who did such a great job with last year's Presidential Leadership Forum, will be co-moderating.  More on that later this week.

There is so much for us to accomplish this year and into the future.

We can elect Barack Obama as the next President.

We can press him and the Congress to enact progressive policies to reverse the damage of the Bush-Cheney years and move America forward by getting our troops out of Iraq, expanding health care coverage, and countless other steps to restore sanity, decency and justice.

We can make a better future for our children.

But there's a thing about that we.  It can't just exist online.  To build a movement, from time to time we have to gather together -- to share our stories, to demonstrate and build on our strength, to learn from each other and plan together for the vital work ahead.  We in the netroots have power, and we convene to figure out how to use it best.

There have been and will be plenty of diaries to urge you to join us at Netroots Nation 2008 which focus on the big-name speakers (and there's more to come) and kick-ass panels taking place in Austin.  But this isn't one of those diaries.

Instead, I want to remind those who've attended in the past (when it was called YearlyKos) and make the point explicit for those who haven't been there yet: the main attraction at Netroots Nation is us -- the nation of netroots activists.  (And, of course, our friends abroad like Jerome a Paris.)

It's in those interstitial moments -- sharing an electrical outlet, running into someone on the way to a panel, finding yourself joining a random team of strangers for Pub Quiz II -- it's there that we build the connections, strengthen the bonds, create this thing that we need to turn all this from words on a screen to votes in D.C.   You can't just come to Netroots Nation to watch -- you come to participate, to join in, and to be energized for the battles to come.

The Internet is awesome, and it has allowed us to build this virtual community of activists and thinkers that congregates here and elsewhere on the tubes.  But that's not all we can be.

Once a year, we become a physical community as well, and you need to be there with us.  You need to be there with us because after all the primary wars, it's time to shake hands and have a giant group hug.  You need to be there with us to see who gets ridiculously, embarrassingly drunk.  You need to be there with us so we can talk, and really listen to each other.  And you need to be there with us because Austin is awesome.

Register now to join us at Netroots Nation 2008.