As for who it is, if there isn't any you have to be it. The only credible opposition during the Bush years I can think of was Howard Dean.

-- Bengt Larsson

Ok, I'll follow you down this road. Now, how do "we" go about being an effective opposition?

(Also, I think you should consider that if there is no political opposition at the government level and the people have to be that opposition then how are the journalists not a part of that opposition also? Is it not their job to "investigate" governmental claims and call lair and bullshit when needed just as you or I would (in theory)? Especially when there is no opposition within the goverment... is it not a journalists moral obligation to their nation, fellow man, principles, etc. to investigate and call bullshit on the lies that led us to Iraq?)

David Gregory is right on "It's not our role". It is the role of the political opposition.

-- Bengt Larsson

So, tell us then, what happens when there is no political "opposition?" And/or the only real political opposition is from protesters who might or might not get covered by great journalists like David Gregory and WaPo?

Hence, the Rulers make sure the underlings are always fighting. Group warfare in a democracy aids those in charge more than any group.

And with that, I am gone. Hell, talking politics is depressing at times. I think I'll do some chores.

-- heru-ur

Hey I hear and agree with you wholeheartedly. The problem is, what do you do with perpetual asshats and sociopaths who, while part of the "dirty masses," will always work against us and support the overlords? Way I see it you can either kill them or marginalize them. One of the ways to marginalize them is to show them for the fools they are. Conservatives are fools. Some are rich fools and some are poor, even bigger fools. Today's "liberal" isn't that far behind them... take o'fer or kovie for instance.

If you had $10 and could only pay for one blog, would you rather have a blog that had 100 readers last year and 80 this year, or one that had 10 readers last year and 10 readers this year?

As others have pointed out, they just hired two liberals to write blogs - Ezra Klein and Greg Sargent - so if it were really a matter of not wanting liberals in the age of Obama, why did they just hire two new ones? --GG

Glenn - I did say:

And I know it doesn't make much sense for them to fire him even if that were the case but they are fascist idiots so, what do you expect?

It wouldn't make any financial sense unless their corporate advertising partners said they would pull their business or something. Maybe Obama called them crying and whining. I wouldn't put it past him.

Who knows why they do what they do? Well, we know who they are right? They are people of the lie. Maybe it is that simple. He was embarrassing them with too much truth. I don't know. I don't think I have ever read the guy. Perhaps they perceive Klein and Sargent to be more accomodating? Who knows.

Just as an aside... I don't really give a shit either. They are establishment and thus my mortal enemy. If Froomkin is all that, then he is better off and probably shouldn't have been working for them in the first place IMO.

why, they (Obama supporters/voters) should be praised because they are so wise and smart. Besides, none of them really believed anything Obama said during the campaign, even though they spent all of last fall defending him and strategizing his every more on the Internets.

You see, in the US you're considered a fool if you do the right thing the first time, and an innovator if you immitate the behavior of fools four years later. Pretty convenient, eh?

-- Chris Sinnard

So true, so true. And so it goes.

Atrios is spot on. I have become a "liberal" because Bush/Cheney, the modern GOP, neocons and the sorry state of Establishment media made me one by default.

-- -Mona-

You mean the Bush/Cheney you voted for...what was it? Twice?

You are only a "liberal" to the idiots Mona, only to the idiots. The rest of us know full well what you are.

I'd be willing to bet lots of money that he has more readers -- generates more traffic -- than the overwhelming majority of Post bloggers who remain.

-- GlennGreenwald

Well, yeah. Wingnuts can barely read. But just because he generates more traffic than his nutbag conservative contemporaries doesn't necessarily mean he has more readers than before the election/during the BushCo years. And I know it doesn't make much sense for them to fire him even if that were the case but they are fascist idiots so, what do you expect?

As for my larger point... Compare Froomkin to Froomkin past. Had his readership declined? It would fly in the face of all logic for there to be more viewers/readers of "liberal" punditry post the Obaminator. Americans and especially "liberals" are too fucking lazy for that. How about Joe Klein? Or even Kos, FireDogLake, Digby, etc.? All of them are going to maintain a loyal core I would imagine but I would really like to know the numbers. I would be willing to bet, though unlike you I have no money, that readership is down overall. I bet Obama's site is a ghost town comparative to what it was pre-election.

Why don't you do a post on that and surprise us all. Until there is some proof either way I think I will stick with common sense.