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.
- chicago dyke's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
On the bright side, news blogs make the NYTimes as muckrakers
Via The News Wire at The Agonist comes this NYTimes story about non-profit web sites set up by journalists to dig into local stories.
The great bugbear--money. How do do good things with only a little money--and benefactors who may lose interest. Most political blogs are dependent on the news published by the MCM, books, scholarly articles, etc. From those may come research done by bloggers and blog readers, but that is not the norm.
Interesting article--one look at the future of journalism, newspapers, "the news."
If we're raking muck...
... then where's the brass?
what he left out
(altho he's been very good overall lately at showing how non-progressive and non-liberal they all are)
is that Obama himself demonized the Clintons and their 2 terms--which by extension slurred the very people he's now hiring.
We've also known for a very long time tho, that Obama would do what Dubya did (and as the Village
demanded) -- hire "experienced" DC Village
members in good standing -- and it's overtly been part of Obama's whole campaign -- all the tons of "validators" -- who have all been Village
members.
here's a better more recent post from him-- http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia... -- Evidence Anyone? -- on all the DLC and rightwing people --
"...And the fact that so many people seem so utterly divorced from reality - so utterly consumed and blinded by their support for Obama - that they cannot see this (or simply refuse to admit it) is really a bad sign for what's to come. ..."
like i said, amber, i'm "sympathetic" to his claims
and i do like much of his work. but i don't like sloppy, even and esp when i do it. but A Listers like David should know better than to write a short screed like that without providing some fucking fact to back it up. he's better than that. i've seen him be so in previous and other posts.