Annoyingly sloppy, David.

Look, there's one thing that the blogosphere can and should do well: provide the details. It's really great that David put up this anti-Clinton screed (and if it's not, it's a bad attempt not to be) at a site that allows comments; at least we get the chance in the comments to remind him that it's important to put his money where his mouth is. But now is the time when Hard Data is really necessary, and really useful, and he doesn't give us any.

Unlike a lot of people, I tend to enjoy much of David's work. As I said in the comments, I can understand, ahem, "both sides" of the argument. On the one hand, I don't believe that many Establishment Villagers can or want to do what it takes to solve the real, pressing problems this country is facing. Many "permanent Villagers" really are too concerned with Insider Baseballism and the pecking order in the Beltway to work hard for the policy change we desperately need. On the other hand, I think that there are *some* experienced, decent, actually liberal or progressive former Clintonians, and just because they worked for the last Democratic president doesn't mean they shouldn't work for the newest one.

Data is good. Facts are good. It's not that fucking hard to make a list, and back it up with links. As they used to say in journalism skoolz: Who? What? Where? When? Why? It would've been really great if David had answered any of those questions, rather than just making a throwaway claim about his evelope backsides, or whatever. You really should've tried harder, D. You're not living up to the High Standards of the Blogosphere, but instead acting like the very Village Insiders you claim to dislike.