While the removal of all timetable language from the Iraq war funding bill appears to be a major political blow to the Democrats, it has also presented a challenge for the so-called netroots. Often taking credit for their role in recruiting and promoting victorious Democratic candidates in 2006, the online activists have hit a wall on the most prevalent issue of the day.

The withdrawal setback has left several among them divided and frustrated over how to proceed on the war. Some now argue that nothing can truly be done until a veto-proof majority is achieved in Congress, whereas others believe the withdrawal language was a smokescreen from the very beginning. The progressive bloggers at FireDogLake believe it's time for impeachment hearings, and John Aravosis of AMERICAblog places much of the blame on the Democratic leadership:

Bush can't veto nothing, and nothing is all that is needed to stop the war (i.e., don't pass any more funding bills, and the war stops). I don't necessarily think the Dems can get away politically with stopping all funding for the war - the public just isn't there yet - nor do I think an immediate 100% stop is militarily wise. But the point is that Bush's veto threat has nothing to do with who has the power to stop this war. The power is in the hands of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. The public handed it to them last November. The only question, the only issue, is whether the public, and the Democrats, are ready and willing to have this war come to a close.

Much of the frustration appears to be directed at Republicans, Democrats, and as Aravosis alluded to, the American public as a whole. That doesn't leave much room for consensus building. However, Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos, arguably the flagship of the movement, had a more tempered (although scathing) message for his fellow progressives:

We face a multiple-front war -- against conservatives, against an out-of-touch and corrupt beltway consultant class, against corporatist Democrats, or Democrats that long ago lost the fire in their belly, and against a compromised punditry elite. Those are tough opponents, and it'll be a decades-long fight.

Did any of you really think we won that war in 2006? I sure as heck didn't. 2006 was incremental improvement, just as 2008 will be. And hopefully 2010. Along the way, we'll likely lose some ground, but we must always remain focused on the long term.

The conservative movement spent three decades building up their machine and completing the takeover of their party. And some of you want to quit after one setback?

That's embarrassing.

It will be interesting to see if Kos's call for patience and determination will be heeded. Richard Viguerie, one of those movement conservatives referred to by Kos, has often stated that the conservative movement resembled a kind of “Grass-roots anarchy” until new mediums and methods of coordination were developed with the Goldwater campaign. His particular weapon of choice was the direct mail piece. It is yet to be seen whether a medium such as the Internet, in many ways built for immediate gratification, will be able to build and sustain a winning coalition of liberal progressives over time.

Their next watershed moment may come in September, when Iraq funding will run dry, and General Petraeus will report on the progress of the surge. President Bush will need funds for the new fiscal year, giving the netroots approximately four months to mobilize and push a withdrawal timetable back into the forefront.