I'm sorry, but perhaps tomorrow after a good night's sleep I'll be able to bring myself to read this Salon article by Michael Scherer ("Cheerful boos for Hillary") but the whatever-you-call-it descriptive text teaser presumably aimed at getting readers interested enough to read the article is such a turn-off I can't dignify it by clicking on the article.

At the YearlyKos convention, the mixed reception for Hillary Clinton is more evidence that the liberal blogosphere might not take sides in the coming Democratic primary.

You've got to be kidding. Look, the "liberal blogosphere" is dead, or should be, the minute it starts self-referentially and self-importantly referring to itself as "the liberal blogosphere" which is presumed to be so monolithic that it may or may not (Oooh, tell us more!) "take sides" regarding anything. [For the blissfully uninformed, does "the liberal blogosphere" have a uniform, a dresscode, a health care plan participants can buy into, a union, a certification program, a retirement plan, or a continuing education requirement?] Honestly, please lay off the Kool-Aid and save the self-justifying behind-the-scenes blogo-gossip for Blog World magazine (a title I'm making up in hopes that it doesn't actually exist) or whatever publication the liberal blogosphere (and perhaps the conservative blogosphere as well) reads these days.

Harrumph ... I'm going to bed.

I'm tired of the supercilious, superior, I-know-it-all attitude of many of the writers here. What was important to me? I heard, first, about Hillary getting booed. Well, I watched the relevant parts at TPM, and there was a boo. There was also raucous applause, just like Michael Scherer said. Why is it that only those who boo are talked about? I mean, I can see why Politico or Drudge would talk that way, but lefties?

Look, as far as I'm concerned, the race is still open. I'm not very fond of the artificial bickering done first by Hillary and then returned by Obama -- my hypothetical policy is longer than yours, according to a secret scale I keep in my basement -- but I will take any of the nominees. Okay, Gravel doesn't stand a chance in hell, and I think he's in it just to goose things up a bit, and neither does Kucinich.

But the YearlyKos started with a stupid attack by O'Reilly, as a collection of "ultra-leftists." It is anything but, and nobody should know better than the ultra-leftists.

I lived through the '60s. I'm a Mario Savio guy. But one thing I've really had enough of are the hyper-activist, know-it-all, purer-than-thou asses who seem to infest the left just like greedy lobbyists and religious wackos infest the right.

...any more than FreeRepublic is the voice of mainstream Republican support. One is as radical as the other and if you accept the roar of the extremists on the left with an appreciative ear, then you must grant the same boon to those on the right. The DNC candidates who show up to meet the Kossaks at YearlyKOS are going to be greeted much differently when they show up for the DNC convention. The vociferous masses attending that event are likely to be more mainstream and more likely to vote Democrat instead of pouting and taking their ball home if they don't hear what they want to hear. Those vociferous masses are the ones that already realize that compromise is necessary to the well-functionning of any democracy, and that sacrifices have to be made sometimes for the common good.

The vociferous wing of DailyKOS who attended YearlyKOS, and who - judging by the reports - appear to be the majority of representatives there, are the same brand of self-absorbed blowhards that voted for Nader in 2000 despite knowing that the country's future hung in the balance. They're the same gang of narcissistic fools who would rather say anything, than be heard saying something. As far as I'm concerned, they are just as responsible for the mess BushCo has got us into, as the people who voted them in.

The sad truth is that, if they continue to blindly maintain that the only way to save the country is "their" way, by avoiding compromise and pushing only their agenda to get the neocons out of power, they'll be just as responsible as the Republicans for electing Thompson, or Giuliani, or Romney in 2008. And the truly, truly, sad part is that they still won't have learned the main lesson which is: the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. (Insert major deity or paradigm of personal belief here) help us all then.

ejb

Isn't Kos on the payroll of the Clinton campaign? I thought I head that about 18 months ago. This isn't a shock, but should be mentioned by any good reporter???

-Geezer2

A clever politician ´s smile should be like the silver fittings on a coffin.

Hillary would have to be crucified and risen on the third day to impress me.

Mr. Scherer's piece is interesting, but it left me with an uncomofortable feeling; I feel like it's trying to sell a wider liberal audience on this "liberal blogosphere" -- as if the ~1,500 bloggers who attended could really represent the continuum of progressive opinion.

I think they're likely being used by the Democratic Party notables, who think if they do some meet-and-greets with these folks, that it'll yield electoral dividends later. I mean, that's what politicians do. But there's something, I dunno, faustian about this whole enterprise.

Like those 1,500 can pretend to be insiders; or maybe they already are insiders after a fashion; like C-list insiders getting a turn on the red (or blue) carpet. They get acknowledged by the powerful, get flattered by the acknowledgement, and are perhaps brought on board by the party powerful. Scherer's last lines made me think that...

The YearlyKos community may not be her most natural constituency, but it is also unlikely to be her enemy. All she has to do is keep showing it respect.

Yeah, Clinton kisses their asses and maybe they quiet down, get to pretend to be kingmakers, or queenmakers. Clinton's still a DINO, and if those 1,500 don't get that, how liberal are they, really?

Two things stood out to me -- Clinton's talking about reading the blogs; does she really read them? Or does she have some subordinate read them and sum them up to her? Yet people ate it up with a spoon, like the popular kid noticing some geeks -- "Oooh, she's reading us! Yay!" One could almost hear the fluttering of butterfly wings in their stomachs.

And then the booing of Kucinich. What the hell is that all about?? Kucinich was right when he said...

Why don't people vote?" Kucinich asked, rhetorically. "It's because they don't think there is much of a difference between the two parties."

And they boo him because of that? Either those 1,500 don't get it and/or else they were already co-opted by this event, or were already co-opted going into it. I worry when professional journalists get too close to the rich and powerful, that it hampers their objectivity; I should think people would worry even more when bloggers do it, because those powerful players are really just using them for their own ends. And that booing of Kucinich had to be music to Clinton's ears, showing that their plan was working.

The Democrats definitely have an edge on the GOP on the Internet; this feels like an effort by the Democratic Party mainstream to capitalize on that advantage, rather than anything particularly progressive.