Jane,
I think it would be good for everyone if you came to Daily Kos, to hash it out with your supporters and critics. I think you should stay and respond, until pretty much all reasonable questions and arguments have been answered. I think it would be a rough ride, but I think you could handle it. I think you should do it at a moment when you're feeling calm, and are prepared for the inevitable abuse you will endure, and I think you should urge your many supporters to remain calm, as you try to help clear the air. I hope you will consider it.
Let me begin by saying that I am a big fan. My first Daily Kos diary that really stuck on the Recommended List prominently featured a quote by you. I consider you an icon of the liberal blogosphere, a pioneer and a critical voice during critical times. Your having given the great Marcy Wheeler her most visible platform was, in itself, a great service to the progressive movement and to the nation as a whole. You were there when few else were, you have vision and ideals, and I think a lot of people now forget all the good you have done. This is a volatile time, and you have both contributed to and suffered from that volatility. For the most part, I am in agreement with you on the issues, including on health care. I also think you have, of late, occasionally crossed the line. I think you can help calm things by acknowledging that. We've all been very thin-skinned, of late.
I disagree with those who criticize you for paying people to blog on Daily Kos. Were you paying them to blog against their true beliefs, I would consider you in the wrong. Were you paying people to recommend your bloggers' diaries, I would consider you in the wrong. But paying people to blog about issues they already were blogging about does not strike me as inappropriate. If anything, I am envious of them. Their success or failure on Daily Kos is still wholly dependent on the quality of their work. You stake your credibility on the quality of their work, just as you stake your credibility on the unnamed sources you sometimes use in your own writing. I find nothing wrong in that, either. I also find it mildly amusing that some of those who criticize you for what they consider to be your attempting to mind-read the president's motives attempt to mind-read your own motives. I tend to think everyone's motives are matrices of sometimes conflicting impulses, and not easily distilled. As a cancer survivor, I also think it possible that I understand some of your personal motives, when writing about health care. Some motives that other people are completely missing. But that's just my opinion.
The real problem, for me, came in this comment, wherein you accused a blogger of being a paid Pharma troll. I have no doubt that there are, indeed, paid Pharma trolls lurking the internets. But I also have no doubt that the particular blogger to whom you were referring is not such a troll. The honest and reflective way she responded to my skepticism of her diary was not the behavior of a paid industry troll. The thoughtful discussion her diary evoked led me to recommend it, despite my not agreeing with it. Granted, my opinion still is based on but gut feeling, but unless I see proof, I can only conclude that your accusation also is based on but gut feeling. Nothing I have seen from that blogger gives me even the remotest suspicion that you are correct about her, but because you have publicly leveled such an accusation, I think the burden of proof is on you. If you have such proof, reveal it. If you don't, I strongly urge you to apologize. Publicly. You were questioning that blogger's integrity, and unless you prove the validity of that questioning, only an apology can prove your own. Given my great respect for you, I don't like writing that.
The health care debate is bringing out the worst in many of us. The stakes could not be higher, and passions could not be more intense. To tens of thousands of people, it's literally a matter of life or death. To millions, it's a matter of financial solvency. But we have to keep our heads clear. Certainly, there are paid shills surreptitiously attempting to influence the debate. Certainly, there are people too blinded by personal factors to question the president's strategy and intentions. But my read is that the vast majority of those defending the president's actions and inactions are well-meaning. I think his opacity is part of the problem. I think we don't even know what he's really doing or not doing, good or bad, behind the scenes. I criticize him for his opacity, but I don't pretend to know what he's really doing or not doing, behind the scenes. I also believe that the vast majority of those who are defending him are merely honestly attempting to understand an extremely complex issue. I may think some are too credulous and naive, and some may think I'm too cynical or critical, but without clear proof, I think it's just flat wrong to question people's honesty and integrity. Mine, yours, or that of the blogger you accused.
But this is about more than that one incident, Jane. This is about your power and reputation. This is about your invaluable blog. This is about your paid bloggers, who, in my estimation, do such fine work, writing about health care. This is about the health care debate itself. This is about the entire liberal blogosphere. You're now at the center of a major meta firestorm. As someone who greatly respects you, I am asking you to help put out the flames, or at least to try. People will attack you, and people will defend you. But you can only answer for your own behavior. I am asking you to do so. You have a Daily Kos account. Please come over here, listen, respond, explain, ask questions, and when appropriate, even admit to and apologize for your own contribution to the hostility. Should you do so, some people still won't warm to you, but that will be their problem. Your actions alone will speak for you. Please consider my request. Thanks.
Turkana