home

The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots

(Guest Posted by A Big Tent Democrat)

If Joe Lieberman wins the August 8, 2006 Connecticut Democratic primary, I think all Dems should support him in the November general election. If Lanny Davis believes that Joe Lieberman is the superior candidate, then his activism on behalf of Lieberman is admirable, even though, to the best of my knowledge, Davis is not a Connecticut resident.

I happen to believe that Joe Lieberman is not the best choice for Connecticut Democrats. I believe Ned Lamont is the better choice. I understand that many in what is termed the "Left Blogs" or the Netroots agree with my view. And that some in the Media do not think kindly of the Netroots involvement. That David Brooks flails in ridiculous terms against Netroots involvement in Democratic primaries and in favor of an apparently saintly Lieberman, is not surprising nor troublesome really. After all, he is a Republican.

But when Democrats like Jon Chait object one has to wonder what is going on here. Chait writes today in the LA Times:

NED LAMONT'S challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman in next month's Connecticut primary has blossomed into a full-scale Democratic civil war. What's at stake is the legitimacy of partisanship.

. . . [I]f Lieberman's allies are irritating and often wrongheaded, alas, his enemies are worse. They have consigned large chunks of the center-left to enemy status. It is an odd way to go about building a majority.

This is the strangest of statements to me. As I understand it, Ned Lamont and his supporters have pledged to support Joe Lieberman should he capture the Democratic nomination on August 8. That qualifies as enemy status these days? How very bizarre. So running a primary challenge is the ultimate betrayal now?

Chait says that:

Although Lamont decided on his own to run, the left bloggers made his campaign their central cause. One result is that Lieberman has announced his intention to run an independent candidacy should he lose the primary.

That is a result of left bloggers? Lieberman has decided not to respect the will of the Democratic voters of Connecticut and it is the fault of bloggers? This makes no sense.

This really signals a problem with the Establishment's conception of a Big Tent Democratic Party. The tent is big, according to the Chait philosophy, as long as the Establishment's choice wins. For folks who disagree with Joe Lieberman, or Teddy Kennedy for that matter, the tent is big as long as they don't actually try to have a voice in who is chosen to represent the Party.

To coin a phrase, one result will be the rise of third party candidacies a la Ralph Nader. For what choice is given to folks who do not agree with the status quo? They are not allowed to compete in primaries and have the result respected.

Those Democrats like Jon Chait who abhor primaries do the Democratic Party no service. We must allow for a fair debate of the issues within the Party. That means primaries. More of them. Hell, I think every Dem facing a primary would be a great thing. It would evidence a vibrancy and openness that should be our Party. It would sharpen the campaigning skills of our candidates. It would keep our elected officials close to their constituencies and their base.

But the winners of the primaries get our support. The Big Tent. We respect the views of Democratic primary voters. That means now supporting Bob Casey in Pennsylvania. That means, if Lieberman stays in the Democratic Party, supporting him if he defeats Lamont. And vice versa Mr. Chait.

Big Tents without primaries that are respected tell progressives the Democratic Party has no place for you. So where does that leave them? With no options within the Democratic Party. And Jon Chait is advocating for the REAL civil war that would come in the Democratic Party. Respect your voters. Respect your primaries. Chait has a lot to learn and the Democratic Party better learn it if it does not want to be torn to pieces.

< Bag Searches Now Routine on NYC Subways | Holland Tunnel Case: Fear Mongering Headline >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#1)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 07:40:39 PM EST
    Another reason the subscription levels at TNR are in the toilet. Beinart is even worse. They want to be Repubplicans but can't get in the door.

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#2)
    by cpinva on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 10:18:01 PM EST
    no thinking person takes david brooks seriously, and for good reason. he suffers, as so many of his ilk do, from mental flatulence: he's noisy, stinks the joint up, possibly causes harm to the environment, but ultimately lacks substance. let me repeat this for those of you who are intellectually challenged: joe lieberman is not a democrat, hasn't been one for several years now. the democratic party did not abandon him, he abandoned it. should he win the primary, than yes, by all means, support his candidacy. pray that he loses, so you can support someone in the general election, without having to hold your nose. fortunately for me, i live in va, and don't face this conundrum. i can, with clear conscionse, support james webb in nov. would that i could learn how to spell by then also!

    If I lived in Connecticut, I would *possibly* vote for Ned Lamont. I say possibly because I've not read anything about his position on much, but the Mainstream media alleges him "radical" for his alleged "Anti-Iraq War Position". Further, if I lived in Connecticut, I would never in a million years vote for Joe Lieberman regardless of whatever party he wins the nomination from. Why should I vote for someone that doesn't represent my beliefs? Why should ANYONE vote for people that SELL OUT their beliefs (i.e. sell lip-service about Progressive ideals to voters and donors and then sell legislation to Corporate interests). But I do not live in Connecticut. I live in Florida. Here in Hillsborough County, I don't have any good choices for representation. That is why I am ABSTAINING until such time a party can nominate a candidate that actually represents Progressive ideals.

    Until they can stop dropping and throwing scat in their blogs they shouldn't be allowed in. You can't let a child or their grandmother read their posts. Lamont says he's a teacher--any K-12 teacher would be called into the admins office if they had their students read his supporters blogs as part of an assignment. AFIC, until these potty-mouths learn to type while clasping a bar of Fels-Naptha between their teeth, they do no good to real Democrats and continue to delegitimize themselves as a mature body of reason. And with them there is no reasoning--you're either in their fold or you're not, and when you're not you are more than their enemy, you become an enemy of the people. IMHO, the NetRoots are the enemy of the Democratic Party. Their attempt to take control of the Democratic Party by their online-bullying, their litany of cursing posts, their ugly-toned blogs needs to be stomped on by those with the guts to come out from hiding. Fear is the main tool of the Blogosphere, it is not reason and it is certainly not viable candidates, it is fear of being a target of their online shot-gun. The NetRoots shouldn't be allowed under the big tent until they can behave like citizens--because as reckless, foulmouth, shock-posting Nedizens, they are untrained wild animals. They made their own filth, let them wallow in it. Alone.

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#5)
    by chemoelectric on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 05:09:54 AM EST
    I remember when Teddy Kennedy was the primary challenger. Jonathan Chait probably doesn't, however.

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#6)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 05:20:16 AM EST
    they do no good to real Democrats
    Who are the ral Democrats? If they are the war mongering, corporatists, anti-worker group that seems to dominate the DLC and TNR then I dont want in. In fact I stopped sending them my meager contributions not that they really care since they are pulling in more money from Wall Street than the Repubs. Todays choice between the two parties comes down to: Do you want religious fanatics with your war mongering, pro corporate, anti-worker, anti minority party. The few Dems who are not have no power and are marginalized. All hail the Coporation and the rich elite. Bow down before their power, maybe a crumb will fall your way,

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#7)
    by aw on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 07:31:51 AM EST
    they are untrained wild animals.
    Count me in!

    Seedfreak, have you ever read a right-wing blog that has comments? You're the unhinged one if you think the left has a monopoly on uncivil language.

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 07:47:22 AM EST
    Nice blog Tampa Student!

    "[I]f Lieberman's allies are irritating and often wrongheaded, alas, his enemies are worse. They have consigned large chunks of the center-left to enemy status. It is an odd way to go about building a majority."
    This is the strangest of statements to me. As I understand it, Ned Lamont and his supporters have pledged to support Joe Lieberman should he capture the Democratic nomination on August 8. That qualifies as enemy status these days? How very bizarre. So running a primary challenge is the ultimate betrayal now?
    His point isn't that there shouldn't be a competitive primary. His point is that Lieberman, the "elected" Vice President of 2000, is in danger of being tossed under the bus by the anti-war Left. Thats a bad indicator of where the party is headed. Millions of us left the Dems during the Reagan Revolution - what remains of the Centrist Left may also bolt if trends like Lieberman-ousting continue. You can't rebuild a "big-tent" around Soros and MoveOn.

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#11)
    by dab on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 08:56:38 AM EST
    Fen: I agree with your observation. Big Tent's whole piece is "straw man" argument. Chait is not arguing against primaries -- a position no one could support. His point is that the blogs' response to the Lieberman - Lamont race is troubling because of its universal embrace of only the farther left of the party being "real" Democrat, and defining the center as Republican. I am not personally a Lieberman supporter, although I consider myself center-left. But I am in favor of a "big tent" and democracy as a whole that includes, perhaps emphasizes: 1) permission for politicians to think independently and to "stray from the party line" and 2) a recognition of the practicalities of American politics: the majority of Americans simply do not agree with far left principles, and making that those the party line will just relegate the party out of power, perhaps resulting in a third party to assume Democrats' former status. Although I may disagree with Lieberman's views on many issues, let's remember who he is. He is one of the more powerful Democratic senators. More importantly, polls have consistently shown that he would trounce any candidate in a general election. He is who the people of Connecticut want. He IS representing the will of those who elect him: that is what a democratically elected politician should always do. The party line is irrelevant in comparison. And let's get real: every one in the Senate initially supported the Iraq war, and most rational observers, while wanting to get out as soon as possible, know that it must be done sensitively to avoid having the country re-taken by a different terrorist regime. Democratic primary voters already skew nominations leftward. If Netroots will only move it that much further left, the country and the Democratic party are better off without them, IMHO.

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 09:14:14 AM EST
    America wants the troops out of Iraq. Ned Lamont is not far left by any stretch of the imagination. If anything he is right of center and Lieberman is essentially republican.
    He is who the people of Connecticut want. He IS representing the will of those who elect him
    If that were true Lieberman would stick with the Democratic Party and not have to hedge his bets by switching to Independent.

    The Democratic Powers that Be are saying that the Democrats of Connecticut are too stupid to know what's good for them. *Not* the way to Win Friends and Influence People. Also, the Connecticut Republicans (yes, they really do exist) are licking their chops at the prospect of a Democratic rift. And that rift is *not* the result of Lamont refusing to kiss Lieberman's ring. To the DPtB: Your strategy of "we're just like Republicans, only better" doesn't seem to be working too well. I suggest trying something else. It's not like Bush and the Republicans are wildly popular right now. Lieberman has tied himself to Bush, and is paying the price. And to the pundit class: we're right and you're wrong. Folks are starting to notice that you're blithering.

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#14)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 10:07:37 AM EST
    Millions of us left the Dems during the Reagan Revolution
    you were never a dem, that's just a standard wrongwinger tactic that we've seen used over and over by rethugs. All of your views that you've espoused have been straight rethug party line. Also I notice none of the wrongwingers here can give links that support their views, just parrot opinions they hear on Faux and lamebaugh.

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 10:15:07 AM EST
    66% of the people believe we should get out of iraq. 1/2 of those think we should leave tomorrow.
    Democratic primary voters already skew nominations leftward.
    got links?

    Dab, Chait is in favor of primaries as long as his candidate wins. If the other guy wins, then he wants his candidate to ignore the primary and run as an independent. That sounds like the end of primaries to me. Lamont, on the other hand, has pledged to support whoever wins the primary. What exactly is "far left" about Lamont, or Kos for that matter? There are plenty of Democratic members of Congress who are far more conservative than Lieberman. There are plenty who favor the war. There aren't any who have been bigger cheerleaders for Bush, on many issues, or more eager to go on TV and smear Howard Dean and other fellow Democrats. That is why Lieberman has a primary challenger, and it's a problem he has brought on himself.

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#17)
    by dab on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 02:43:34 PM EST
    Sailor, Squeaky, etc.: Here is a link to an article describing polls showing that the majority in Conn. would support Lieberman even if he ran as an independent. 18% Lamont. Majority of Conn. Dems. still support him as well, but I suspect less so among the more activist Dems. likely to show up for the primary. (Sorry I am new to posting here and don't know how to do a link.) link I reread Chait's article, and don't see anywhere that he condemns primaries. He just criticizes Dems' techniques, particularly those who want to push the party left and ostracize those who disagree. I think some of the commenters here, particularly Sailor, have provided a nice illustration of the scenario. Assuming me to be a "wrongwing" "Rethug" Limbaugh and Fox News fan because I don't agree with you is silly. [FYI, I volunteered for the Kerry campaign (although I thought Clark or Edwards would have been better candidates), as well as in support of Clinton's second run and for local dem pols. Hope that's legit enough for you.]

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 03:32:24 PM EST
    dab- your link: Jihadist Bravado: The Playboy Professor -- Al Qaeda Wannabe. As funny as that is given the context of Lieberman/Lamont, I do not think that was your intention. From the polls I have seen Leiberman is sliding out of the race. Even though he is ahead the rate his numbers are dropping is not a good sign for him considering the tremendous advantage he has as an incumbent. Here are some poll links.

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#19)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 04:08:31 PM EST
    Although I may disagree with Lieberman's views on many issues, let's remember who he is. He is one of the more powerful Democratic senators.
    Using that power for evil goals, such as supporting the war in Iraq, is a good reason to get rid of him.
    More importantly, polls have consistently shown that he would trounce any candidate in a general election. He is who the people of Connecticut want. He IS representing the will of those who elect him: that is what a democratically elected politician should always do. The party line is irrelevant in comparison.
    The Primary Election will decide that, not your assertions. It's called, let me think, DEMOCRACY.
    And let's get real: every one in the Senate initially supported the Iraq war, and most rational observers, while wanting to get out as soon as possible, know that it must be done sensitively to avoid having the country re-taken by a different terrorist regime.
    Wrong. My senator Barbara Boxer did not, and Russ Feingold did not. Turns out that those who were labeled "leftist" can now be labeled "smarter than the warmongers."
    Democratic primary voters already skew nominations leftward.
    The people have spoken. Damn them for it.
    If Netroots will only move it that much further left, the country and the Democratic party are better off without them, IMHO.
    Define "left. I see a lot of people accusing DKos of being a "leftist" site or "crazed leftists," but we know that is a slur spread by those who fear passion and intelligence, so they must give it a pejorative.

    Sailor:
    that's just a standard wrongwinger tactic that we've seen used over and over by rethugs. All of your views that you've espoused have been straight rethug party line.
    LOL, you ever read what you write? You call poeople more names than a six year old. I hope you feel better, or more superior. Maybe I'll try it. Dumbocrat! Nah, I don't feel any better.

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimcee on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 04:33:11 PM EST
    I've been wondering why the 'netroots' folks have been relentlessly dissing Lieberman with some rather crude things but yet Sen Clinton, who also supports the war in Iraq, is not being challenged by a 'netroots' anti-Iraq candidate. It seems pretty hypocritical to go after Lieberman while giving Clinton a look-away pass. Although the more I think about the recent glowing posts about Ms Clinton here from TL it isn't really that odd. Against Lieberman but in the tank for Clinton. Go figure.

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 04:41:47 PM EST
    jimcee-you must be quoting Lieberman here, because that is his talk. No one loves me because I support the war, waah, waah, boo hoo.. His problem is much larger than supporting the was. He has left the democratic party, which is why you are shilling for him. Clinton has stuck with the party. Apples and Oranges.

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimcee on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 06:34:28 PM EST
    Squeaky, No, I'm speaking as one of Sen Clinton's constituents and it is hypocritical to demand a certain position from Lieberman but not from Clinton when both are in a election year. It is not as you say 'apples and oranges' it is simply hypocritical. What is it that makes Clinton different than Lieberman in the eyes of the 'netroots' community except that apparently the 'netroots' folks have been given thier talking points about both senators, Lieberman bad, Clinton good. Please explain how two people holding the same opinion, in the same party are so different? As I said, hypocrites.

    Jimcee, if you look at the evidence you yourself are presenting (Hillary's lack of a primary opponent), you'll see that it refutes your point that opposition to Lieberman is all about the war. I'm not sure how you arguing against your own talking points is supposed to present a problem for those of us who oppose Lieberman.

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 08:39:24 PM EST
    jimcee- I guess what you are saying is that you would back Lieberman and you would never back Clinton. That is why most of the netroots community is fighting to unseat Lieberman. You are the barometer. Thanks for making it clear that Lieberman is really a republican. BTW- Clinton will support the winner of the primary. Lamont will support Lieberman if he wins the primary. Lieberman will bolt if he loses.

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#26)
    by dab on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 09:47:35 PM EST
    The people have spoken. Damn them for it.
    More accurately, the Democratic primary voters will be speaking. But they unfortunately seem to be out of touch with what the majority of the "people" want. Case in point: nominating a wealthy new england liberal who could barely carry a swing state, let alone a red state, against an unpopular president. To all the "take the party left for success" commenters (seemingly almost everyone out there), I am curious: Do you believe that dems can win over the majority of the country by shifting left? Do you think that red state voters are more likely to support candidates that farther left? What makes you think that? When was the last time a Howard Dean-type, very socially progressive/liberal candidate won a national election? Carter in '76 if memory serves. That worked out well. lol. Gotta go back even farther to find one that didn't come from the South.
    I guess what you are saying is that you would back Lieberman and you would never back Clinton. That is why most of the netroots community is fighting to unseat Lieberman. You are the barometer. Thanks for making it clear that Lieberman is really a republican
    . You are making more Republicans by the minute. Is that how you expect to take control back for Dems? I know many centrist Dems who would never vote for Hillary Clinton. Same questions as above for her. Do you really think she can win in red states? I don't. I really hope what I have been reading on this and similar blogs does not reflect/ influence primary voting. Otherwise I fear Republicans' dream will come true, Dems will nominate HC, and Jeb, Bill Frist or some similar goon will finish W's job of wrecking our courts and gutting our laws. How sad.

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 09:55:39 PM EST
    Here is a good NPR audiolink. Dan Murphy of CS Monitor moderated Matt Stoller of MyDD; Mark Pazniokas of Hartford Courant; Jonathan Chait of TNR; Chuck Todd of National Journal; Fernando Guerra of Loyola Marymount University discuss Lieberman and Lamont.

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimcee on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 06:37:24 AM EST
    Squeaky, I'm neither a Republican nor a barometer. (I never thought I'd write that sentence ever.) I'm just curious why there is this hypocracy about support for one pro-war Democrat from a blue state and not for another. You have not explained the difference so I would guess that you can't but if you would like to try again please do so.

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#29)
    by aw on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 09:18:22 AM EST
    More accurately, the Democratic primary voters will be speaking. But they unfortunately seem to be out of touch with what the majority of the "people" want.
    Primary voters are the people.

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#30)
    by glanton on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 10:34:45 AM EST
    jimcee: Much like the Gold Star mothers and MoveOn, several regular posters on this site have spoken against Hillary Clinton just as vehemently as they have against Lieberman. They both suck, is the general consensus for those who care about civil liberties and who fear the military-industrial complex. As a regular yourself, you know this, so why do you paint with the broad brush?

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 10:49:37 AM EST
    jimcee-Lieberman has consistently dissed the Democratic party in favor of the current administration. The very fact that he is going to run whether or not the CT dems elect him in the primary is the latest example and typical of his behavior. He is not a team player. Yes, a politician has to have a huge ego but in the end it has to be tempered to fall in line with the party. Lieberman believes that he is truly a democrat and the democrats are out of touch. Ann Coulter supports him as does Limbaugh. Evidentially so do you. What can that possibly mean? All of the examples hate Clinton. If you are interested in an in depth discussion of why Lieberman is no longer representative of his constituency listen to the NPR radio show linked above. My guess is that your question is rhetorical and are either just shilling for Lieberman or jumping at an opportunity to bash Clinton.

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#32)
    by glanton on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 11:03:24 AM EST
    Lamont's website, pretty cool. This aint easy for me to say, but here's a candidate I could actually see myself voting for. The positions are sensible and the rhetoric is clean, a pro-freedom, anti-corporate interest politician vying for the Democratic nomination. Who'da thunk it? Of course, all of these qualities also point up why he hasn't a snowball's chance in Hades.

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 11:26:24 AM EST
    glanton- nice to see you excited by a candidate. It has been awhile. It does look like many in CT share your view, so do not fall off your chair if he wins. It is always interesting when someone on the sidelines becomes mainstream without having to move an inch. Tasini also looks great. I am not holding my breath on that one though.

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#34)
    by glanton on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 12:48:23 PM EST
    Squeaky, It has indeed been a while. And I will fall out of my chair if Lamont wins the nomination. And even if he wins the nomination, I, sadly, have to sign on with Slado and others who have noted that a Lamont victory in the Primary will likely translate into a split-vote style victory for the Conn GOP. But then, maybe that wouldn't be the worst thing. Frist of all (pun intended), a GOP victory in November wouldn't change the seat, the votes would be almost entirely the same. Secondly, sometimes moral victories do count for something. If (and this is a big freakin' if) there is any hope for our country at all one day moving to something other than Corporate Feudalism, that possibility in my view rests entirely on those who have the means, the courage, and the realization that short run defeat is an outright certainty, to say what needs to be said to the widest possible audience. Lamont's website indicates he is one of these voices. His presence is good for the country.

    Re: The Big Tent: The Drive To Purge The Netroots (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimcee on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 05:34:06 PM EST
    Glanton, My sister is a Gold Star Mother and she doesn't speak to the press. Enough said on that account. My reason for questioning the blatant hypocracy of the netroots community is they have focused all thier ire on Lieberman but have obviously given Clinton a look-away pass. Why? I don't know if you've noticed but Sen Clinton hired a blogger and TL started blowing air-kisses to Clinton to the point of attending a fund-raiser and had kind things to say about her afterwards. Just seems fishy. Squeaky, If he runs as an independent and wins what then? Why would you drive a wedge into the Democrat party and possibly loose a seat to the Repubs if your goal is to regain the Senate? Seems like a bad strategy to me. I don't hate Sen Clinton I just know what it is like to have a person represent me that doesn't give a damn about her constituents and is more concerned with her presidential aspirations. She never, ever takes a principled stand on any subject no matter what. She just mouths the platitudes that she thinks her audience de jour wants to hear but she always has her eyes on the prize. After the Kos/Armstrong imbroglio tainted some on the Left and the Armstrong/Bushies payola on the Right, in the blogosphere it seems there is a bit of the 'circling of the wagons'. It's amazing what a little money does to the "people's media" aka the blogosphere. As I said earlier, hypocracy.