as long as bloggers, of whaterver persuation, disclose their paid relationship to a candidate, they're no different than any other campaign employee.

Now we can publish on our own, cite real time facts for our beliefs and actually participate in the news.

Kos et al didn't come about because they had millions/billions of dollars to buy media media outlets, they happened because people read them and could decide for themselves whether they were right (partially belief based, partially thru fact checking) and contribute to the discussion.

That's when advertising $$ kicked in. It was credibility before the money instead of the reverse, (e.g. mega corps own 90% of the news outlets, G.E., Murdoch, etc.)

The MSM has been shallow and biased for years, (see coverage of clinton's lies about BJs v. coverage about bush's lies about WMDs).

Now pundits perceive a threat because we can cite facts for calling their lies lies, but all they can do is continue to lie ... and blame incivility of 'bloggers' for the situation they find themselves in. It's almost like they are trying to defend that only they can have opinions about our democracy and the rest of just have to listen to their blatherings.

Gee, how odd, a small number of folks saying anything to defend their way of life in a world of advancing technology.

As for showing disdain, I see nothing wrong with that. As an old timer at a university, I wish the newly minted assistant professors break down the front door and proclaim that we old timers are full of it. The enthusiasm, motivation, sharpness and self assurance are the best way to a newer and better generation. Same holds for the Bloggers and the old time MSM.

Transparency as a political principle doesn't stop at the gates of the blogosphere. Especially since established bloggers are now taking in and spending seven-figured sums of political money, meeting former presidents and being interviewed on CNN on election night.