So,
Roger Simon has a blog entry saying that the Internet is bad for Dean and Clark, because bloggers can look stuff up about them and report it, have the press borg(TM) pick it up and so on...
Of course, I don't know why that applies to Dean and Clark and not any of the other candidates, and I don't know why he thinks bloggers are the only people who do that. After all, Nedra Pickler and her ilk would be out of a job if they did not dig dirt up on candidates.
But, he cites an interesting example:
This is exceptionally dangerous for Dean who has defined himself and staked his nomination on being the Most Antiwar Candidate, when, among other things, quite a short time ago he was not.
When has Dean ever claimed to be anti war? He is anti THIS war, but he is not anti war in general -- as I am sure most people here know. Inadvertantly, what Simon is demonstrating is the intellectual dishonesty shown by many conservative bloggers and echoed throughout the press borg(TM): They assign a position to a candidate and attack that position, regardless of the validity of the claim.
Once this idea enters the consiousness of the press borg(TM) it will not leave, no matter how mcuh evidence there is to the contrary.