The video raises several interesting points, related to both PR in general and blogging as a political tool.
I would say that the main message comes when he is talking about the democratic presidential campaign of 2004, and mentions how the Democratic Party had greater funds, resources, and (in his opinion) much better proposals, but still lost. This defeat happened because they did not know how to make use of their resources, choosing to stick to obsolete methods, such as door-to-door visits and constant calls. Their political consultants had a fear of change, and a candidate's success (in other elections as well) tended to be inversely proportional to how much the stuck to the scrip given to them by the party. What this tells us is several things:
Firstly, money and resources are no guarantee for a political (or ideological) campaign. If you don't have a good strategy you can spend boatloads of money in ares where you traditionally have the majority and still loose.
Secondly, the models that worked for the past can't be relied on forever. The idea being sold, the demographics, the political scenario and of course the opponent's tactics evolve with time. If one does not follow those changes, they become obsolete.
Thirdly, the notion that despite having the best ideas and proposals you can still loose. That is because modern humans (especially online) have a severe difficulty putting ourselves in the other person's shoes. Of course we think our ideas are right, we wouldn't subscribe to them otherwise, but why should the others accept them? To use banners of our famous board as an example: they understand the importance of sexual responsibility and abstinence from drugs, but why should the average young man or women accept these ideals? How can they make them more appealing than having constant sex with different partners and getting high? What kind of argument will have an effect? Certainly not ones based on universal morality and long-term collective consequences, such as the ones the people on that board tend to use.
Regarding the specifics of the progressive movement, the speakers exposed their past difficulty in recruiting talent to innovate. I don't see that as being the case anymore. One of the speakers mentions that he is "not a leader, but a creator of infrastructure for the rise and maintenance of leaders". This is what we are seeing with he rise in the importance of bloggers and online journalists in the political sphere: they are either developing software for their goals, or they act as organizers for movements that back a certain common point. It is not so much about them as it is about The Cause. These people are the ones who are being recruited by the progressive movement, those who will write favorably of their chosen personalities and unfavorably of everyone else.
The matter of targeting influential individuals for the dispersion of ideas is also crucial, but only mentioned in passing. In truth, delegating the spotlight to a small group of people instead of fighting to stand under it is fundamental, as most individuals must accept their support role in whatever endeavor they are a part of.
Other points worth mentioning are his statement that "polls mean very little", which we already know, since focus groups have always given better results; and that "marching achieves nothing, the future is online", which most people who don't have their heads in the sand can tell.
What did you guys take from this video? What do you disagree from what he said?