As flagged by Greg Sargent, Politico founders John Harris and Jim VandeHei haven't got a clue:
The liberal blogosphere grew in response to Bush. But it is still a movement marked by immaturity and impetuousness -- unaccustomed to its own side holding power and the responsibilities and choices that come with that.
"Immaturity and impetuousness"? Yeah, that describes us to a T, unlike mature and patient (and very, very serious) folks like Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin who somehow find their every utterance transcribed in Vandehei's publication.
So many liberals seem shocked and dismayed that Obama is governing as a self-protective politician first and a liberal second, even though that is also how he campaigned.
Wait, I thought VandeHarris wanted to attack liberal bloggers. So why are they characterizing President Obama as a political hack who is governing out of expediency instead of conviction? That's really an absurd description. President Obama didn't campaign on being a political hack. He campaign on achieving a set of policy goals that would transform this country and eighteen months into his administration he's been pretty damn successful in achieving those goals.
The liberal blogs cheer the fact that Stan McCrystal's scalp has been replaced with David Petreaus's, even though both men are equally hawkish on Afghanistan, but barely clapped for the passage of health care.
What planet have VandeHarris been on? Seriously, what planet? Most people in the netroots were thrilled that health care reform passed, as were most Democrats. Sure, it was a knock-down, drag-out fight to get to the finish line, but once we got to the finish line, we were determined to cross it. To get a sense of what I'm talking about, maybe Vandehei ought to rewatch the video Markos threatening Dennis Kucinich with a primary if he opposed final passage (assuming he ever saw it in the first place).
They treat the firing of a blogger from the Washington Post as an event of historic significance, while largely averting their gaze from the fact that major losses for Democrats in the fall elections would virtually kill hopes for progressive legislation over the next couple years.
Oh. Come. On. If VandeHarris can find a single progressive blog with more posts about Dave Weigel and the WaPo than about the 2010 elections, I'd be stunned. But even if they could pick that cherry, it wouldn't change this fact: we sure as hell understand the importance of the midterms.
Unlike with teabaggers, you haven't seen any real desire among netroots activists for purity tests. The closest example you could come up with would be Bill Halter, but he would have been a stronger general election candidate than Blanche Lincoln. The same holds true for Joe Sestak. And Markos has pushed for Charlie Crist to run as a Democrat for more than a year. That's the opposite of a purity test. That's a big tent.
In contrast, teabaggers have cost the GOP dearly, not just in NY-23, but in Senate races across the country, nominating fringe candidates like Sharron Angle and Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. Angle has cost the GOP what looked to be an easy victory in Nevada and Paul has made Kentucky competitive. Rubio is a telegenic guy, but in pushing Crist out of the GOP, he's threatened their hold on that seat.
As Sargent concludes:
All VandeHarris are revealing is that they don't regularly read liberal blogs -- and that they know they can count on the fact that the Beltway insiders who will snicker knowingly about this article don't read liberal blogs either. And that's fine: Don't read them! But please don't make stuff up about them and call it journalism.