From the writers of Deny My Freedom --Jason Zengerle thinks he has the blogosphere by the balls again, and I swear it is getting really old tearing this guy apart. This time, it appears that the Ned Lamont campaign is "disingenuous" for not taking responsibility for every individual post that refers to the Connecticut Democratic Primary. I'm serious, he's that far off base. Again.
The article starts innocently enough, with Zengerle showing the disconnect between the Lamont statement last night distancing himself from the blackface controversy, and statements showing his support of the blogosphere efforts to see him win in November. But at this point, Zengerle once again abandons reason in the name of trying to show that the Netroots really is a danger to candidates, because...well...because they have the audacity to associate themselves with the campaigns by writing about them!
Oh well...here we go again.
From the
offending piece:
Seems like Lamont knows a bit more about blogs than he let on last night. Look, in the grand scheme of things, this whole blackface controversy isn't that big a deal. But I do think it's significant that the Lieberman campaign is now trying to make an issue out of Lamont's online supporters--and that, judging from today's press coverage, they're having some success doing so.
Yes, it's true, as the Lamont campaign argues, that Hamsher doesn't draw a paycheck from Lamont. But it's disingenuous for Lamont campaign spokeswoman Liz Dupont-Diehl to tell The Washington Post that Hamsher is merely "an independent blogger covering the race"--like she's some beat reporter or something. As anyone who reads her posts at firedoglake can easily see, she's practically been absorbed into the Lamont campaign.
Well Zengerle, let me state this really slowly, once again:
- Bloggers are not journalists.
- Bloggers are people.
- People have opinions.
- Unless people are being paid for these opinions, this is perfectly understandable and ethical.
I'm not sure how Zengerle makes the leap of logic to suggest that just because an individual blogger chooses to volunteer and support a candidate, that instantly makes them a part of the campaign that the candidate is responsible for. I know this may come as a surprise to some of the Washington insiders, but not all campaigns are fueled by a campaign structure full of paid operatives. In fact there is a certain kind of campaign, a people-powered variety you could say, that is dependent upon individuals, with opinions, doing what they can to help their favorite candidate get elected.
This isn't that hard, and we shouldn't have to have this discussion again.
The reason this may matter is because if Lamont does win this Tuesday's Democratic Primary (and according to a new Quinnipiac poll Lamont is leading Lieberman by 14 points), he'll need to significantly broaden his support in order to win a three-way general election race. And if the Lieberman campaign is successful at getting Connecticut's local papers and local TV newscasts to scrutinize some of Lamont's online supporters, that might be a difficult task.
After all, the secret of Lamont's success, in my opinion, is that he appears to be an eminently reasonable, moderate, likable guy. In other words, while he may not excite voters, he's also not likely to turn them off enough to prevent them from casting an anti-Lieberman vote for him (and according to the same Quinnipiac poll, 65 percent of Lamont's supporters say their vote is mainly against Lieberman). But some of Lamont's online supporters aren't nearly so benign. And I wonder what will happen if Connecticut's voters--many of whom presumably don't read blogs--start to get a better sense of Lamont's online supporters via the mainstream media. Will voting for Lamont in order to register displeasure with Lieberman still seem "safe"?
Goddamnit.
Ok, so let me get this straight:
- Lieberman has the support of an administration with whom the Connecticut electorate is extremely dissatisfied.
- Lieberman has consistently gone against the will of his constituency.
- Lieberman's campaign put forth a race-baiting advertisement, for which they never apologized.
- *drumroll*
- Thus, the big issue is that Ned Lamont's unaffiliated individual supporters might say something offensive?
I know Mr. Zengerle, it must be hard to watch your world slowly crumble around you, and you have every right to be worried. As the traditional DC establishment gets a wakeup call to the realities of people-powered politics, it must be a scary time for all of you. Trust me though, your growing irrelevancy isn't the issue here, your complete inability to see, (or write), the truth is.
Believe me, and I know you won't, this campaign isn't about the blogosphere, it isn't about the Iraq War, and it sure as hell isn't about one picture that the Lamont campaign never knew about until someone pointed it out to them.
This is a campaign about the voters of Connecticut, and their choice of who they think can best represent their interests in Washington. This is about the democratic process in work, not an insurgency of radical thought. And at the end of the day, this is about holding incumbents accountable for the decisions they make while in office.
If you can't understand that, then I think the rise of the Netroots is the least of your problems.
(The preceding is an editorial from the staff of Deny My Freedom)