Cowards hiding behind blind quotes

Ahh, here we go. The poor gazillionaire consultants in DC are too cowardly to make their criticisms publicly, so they hind behind a cloak of anonymity. And journalists like the Philly Inquirer's Dick Polman enable them.

The Democratic players back in Washington think these bloggers have way too much attitude; they recall what happened when one of their own, strategist Steve Elmendorf, told a reporter that Democratic candidates should not become "captive of the activist left." For that, Moulitsas called Elmendorf a "sleazebag," threatened to wreck his business, and triggered a flamewar against the guy. This is why, today, the D.C. insiders will only voice their concerns about the bloggers in exchange for anonymity.

Thus, one top Washington strategist said by phone: "The vituperative yelling, the screaming, the hollering - they're amateurs trying to play like professionals. Yet we see all these Democrats starting to hire them, pay them for advice. It's crazy. The real question is whether this new medium will amplify their voice to the point where it distorts our party politics. They are not a bellwether of what Democrats generally think. They are just another interest group, flying to Vegas to have a convention."

These incompetent consultants demand a lack of accountability and are threatened that outsiders are infringing on their hallowed turf. They cowardly hide behind the blind quote, lest they be called on their bullshit. I have no problem attaching my name to my criticisms. Why don't they? Why does Dick Polman give them cover?

[e-mail]

Update: There's a difference between complete anonymity and using a pseudonym. When Mystery Pollster first started blogging, he used just the pseudonym. We didn't know his real name. Yet he was still accountable for what he wrote in this battleground of ideas. Polman's cowardly anonymous consultants are not. And that's a huge difference.