THE CAMPAIGN MONEY FALLACY. I'm inclined to agree with Duncan that the campaign money fallacy should be taken out back and shot. There is not, in fact, a finite amount of funds each progressive donor gives to a candidate, and there's no real reason to believe that their donations to Lamont will, in some sort of zero-sum fashion, detract from their donations to Webb.
That said, Adler, as I read him, was making a more specific point: that the blogosphere's capability to focus attention and emphasis on a certain campaign or issue is limited, and that they'd made a strategic mistake in devoting so much of it to Lamont. I do recall far more "Nedrenaline" posts than I do Webb appeals, so it seems to me that Adler's got a point there. Whether he's right that the netroots squandered its time or energy by focusing on Lieberman is, I think, a different question, and one that I can see both sides of. But asking it doesn�t necessarily entail buying into the zero-sum conception of campaign money that gives the priorities of donors who've contributed to Clinton's $22 million a pass. Speaking of her war chest, it's worth keeping in mind that much of her money comes from corporations and industry groups who have a different agenda than individual progressive donors, so much of it isn't meant to advance the Democratic Party or the liberal agenda at all.