A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days

Democrats are getting an early glimpse of an intraparty rift that could complicate efforts to win back the White House: fiery liberals raising their voices on Web sites and in interest groups vs. elected officials trying to appeal to a much broader audience.

These activists -- spearheaded by battle-ready bloggers and making their influence felt through relentless e-mail campaigns -- have denounced what they regard as a flaccid Democratic response to the Supreme Court fight, President Bush's upcoming State of the Union address and the Iraq war. In every case, they have portrayed party leaders as gutless sellouts.

First, liberal Web logs went after Democrats for selecting Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine to deliver the response to Bush's speech next Tuesday. Kaine's political sins: He was too willing to drape his candidacy in references to religion and too unwilling to speak out aggressively against Bush on the Iraq war. Kaine has been lauded by party officials for finding a victory formula in Bush country by running on faith, values and fiscal discipline.

Many Web commentators wanted Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a leading critic of the Iraq war who advocates a speedy withdrawal, to be the opposition voice on the State of the Union night. Most Democratic lawmakers have distanced themselves from the Murtha position. "What the hell are they thinking?" was the title of liberal blogger Arianna Huffington's column blasting the Kaine selection.

"Blogs can take up a lot of time if you're on them," Kaine said to reporters Thursday. "You can get a lot done if you're not bitterly partisan."

The Virginia Democrat said he will not adjust his speech to placate the party's base. "I'm not anybody's mouthpiece or shill or poster boy for that matter. I'm going to say what I think needs to be said and they seem very comfortable with that."

Liberal activists seemed to have slightly more influence with their campaign to persuade Senate Democrats to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. Despite several polls showing that the public opposes the effort, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) on Thursday strongly advocated the filibuster plan -- and wrote about his choice on the Daily Kos, a Web site popular with liberals. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), a leading liberal and critic of the Iraq war, told reporters Kerry's viewpoint is not shared by most in a culturally conservative swing state such as West Virginia. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) also opposes the filibuster.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is another frequent target of the Internet attacks. Code Pink, an antiwar women's group with a flashy Web site, plans to protest one of Clinton's weekend fundraisers and is using the Web site to rally people against the New York Democrat. The critics say Clinton has not challenged Bush aggressively enough on Iraq.

"The bloggers and online donors represent an important resource for the party, but they are not representative of the majority you need to win elections," said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist who advised Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. "The trick will be to harness their energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left."

Well, yes that would be the trick. Unfortunately, it appears to be difficult to pull off. The article goes on to say that John Kerry is trying to bring about a closer alliance between the Democratic establishment and the netroots branch of the party, but given the genuine lack of interest in Kerry on the part of netroots activitsts--a lack of interest that Kerry's quixotic efforts to filibuster Samuel Alito will likely do nothing to alleviate in the long run--the tension between the netroots activists will probably remain. This means that the Democrats will either be pulled too far to the left and fail to crowd the center, or their ideological base will be tempted to stay home.

"Ah," you say, "but the ideological base hates and abhors George W. Bush and will do anything to defeat him and therefore will put aside its concerns about the Democratic Party reaching too far to the center." To which I say, "yes, and you said that in 2002 and 2004 as well. See where it got you."

Thus far, this tension between the netroots and the establishment does not appear to have manifested itself in the Republican Party. Of course, that does not mean that it might not, which is why it is incumbent upon Republicans to remember that any successful alliance between the establishment and the netroots will depend on both sides respecting the needs and viewpoints of the other and seeking not to unduly burden the other side with unreasonable demands. It is one thing to stand up for your rights. It is another thing altogether to bully a partner into a state of permanent acquiescence that only serves to harm a political partnership in the long run.