...are fools, pure and simple.

1. Politicians can't control what bloggers say, and should never be able to. But once associated with a blog, politicians will find themselves having to either defend or abjure whatever nonsense the blogger thinks to write. Who needs that?

2. Politicians need to get out their message, but blogs can only put out their own messages, not the politician's message. Futhermore, blog readers are hopelessly argumentive and may get the politician bogged down in defending his message to his own followers--not a happy situation.

2. Politicians need to make friends, but blogs are only really good at making enemies. A site like Daily Kos may have thousands of readers, but there may be thousands or even millions more of 'invisible' readers who hate Daily Kos. A politician who associates with a blog will then get all of that blog's enemies--and those enemies can be ferocious. What politician needs that?

3. A successful blog is basically like a mob. It consists of a leader (or leaders) and a bunch of followers. Blog followers can be (and often are) very vocal and aggressive to the point of intimidation. A politician who associates with a blog is basically associating with a private mob, and that's an unsavory prospect in a democracy.

In fact, there's no argument I can think of that says politicians should have anything to do with blogs. Edwards is right to bail on the blogs, if that's what he's doing.

...but elections are still a two party affair in this country. If you don't vote for one party, then that helps the other party. And that's all she wrote.

Aren't you shocked that some readers here would rather see the country nuked, or work for the Republicans, or vote for Nader, than support Hillary Clinton? That's just wrong.

She's not even nominated and some people are talking about giving it all up to the Republicans, just because they don't like her. How does that make anything better?

The fact is, Hillary Clinton is not that different from just about any other Democrat. Even Feingold is no radical. Obama is no radical, either. ALL the Democrats are moderate and that's why Clinton, Edwards, Biden and Kerry are all stuck in the same boat of having voted for the war resolution. If Hillary is no worse than any other Democrat, then why have such a damn cow over her nomination?

There are no real liberals in the Democratic party and that's because too many liberal voters have pulled out of the Democratic party. People who won't vote in the Democratic primaries can't possiby make the Democrats more liberal. They can only make the Democrats more conservative. And the same in the general election. If you won't vote for a Democrat in the general, then that only helps Republicans. It doesn't matter what your motives are or what you think or what you want; this is what happens.

Politics is a tug of war, just as I said. The analogy is EXACT. The weight of the voters moves the country either to the left or the right, or it remains the same. If you won't pull on the rope, than you can't influence the country to go in the direction you want. It just won't happen.

And this also speaks to GK's other point, that we have to work with Republicans. If we don't work with Republicans, then other people will and they will influence the country and we won't. And that too is all she wrote.

...hope he doesn't sell out to Geico.

...has now got himself caught smack in the middle of a religious war. And that's not a good thing for a presidential candidate.

It would be interesting to know who hired these bloggers and why. Who thought these bloggers would be assets to the campaign? Was it Edward's wife?

...because that's what we need to make our choices in the primaries.

However, I hope Salon will learn to stop caring so much what the bloggers and the netroots have to say (or shout, rather). The bloggers and the netroots are NOT the same as the Democrats. They are not even the same as Democratic activists. Their numbers are small and their influence on actual voters runs from nil to negative.

The polls prove this. The netroots are mostly against Hillary Clinton, while Hillary Clinton leads in most polls. The netroots were all against Joe Lieberman, yet Joe Lieberman was reelected Senator. The netroots are a very limited set of people.

Instead of catering to the airless and tired netroots, Salon needs to write for the vast number of real voters out there who aren't part of any blogging clique. Millions of people in this country are hungry for real information that actually impacts their lives. They want to hear about new and effective directions for the country. They are NOT interested in what the lefty or rightie blogger line of the month is or whether Salon is against it or for it. They just don't care if the left blogosphere ever beats the right blogosphere or not. Most people have never heard of the Edwards blogger brouhaha and couldn't be made to understand why they should care about it.

Salon's future has to lie outside of the netroots. This is where your growth has to come from. Catering to the limited netroots is never going to increase your readership or move the country in a better direction.

...and you'll get less than one percent of that blogger's friends and more than 100 percent of his or her enemies.

This case just proves that, conclusively. Hence there's no reason for politicians to hire bloggers at all.

Mrs. Paul + Gorton's Fisherman = Genius!

...then pushing the mouse around constitutes cruelty to animals.