But I digress (or for those of you paying attention to the inside jokes, regress).
Anyways. Turns out, the Big Dog had Hillary’s top blogger call sort of a summit meeting of what apparently is the – and this is an important phrase and meme gang – "liberal blogosphere".
Daily Kos diarist kid oakland’s post is mostly concerned with the lack of color in the photograph of the bloggers with President Clinton. He wrote, in part:
It may well be, as we learned at Yearlykos, that the liberal blogosphere is significantly more white than the Democratic Party at large.
Thereby providing me with my point of departure, to wit:
The "liberal blogosphere" is an oxymoron to begin with (think jumbo shrimp). And whether the "liberal blogosphere" wants to hear it or not, the absence of people of color isn't the biggest problem it has. It is the extent to which it fails to represent the Democratic Party, period. Big, big problem.
Now one might reasonably think to oneself: Damn, good thing Chris MC has nuthin’ to lose, because he is practically thumbing his nose at the Power Players of the “liberal blogosphere”! And if you had that thought, you would be right.
My question to you, “liberal blogospherists”, is about the ideological divide that "liberal blogospherism" appears committed to creating in the Democratic Party.
To me, a candidate who cannot get elected if only the liberal blogospherists vote for him – which is to say every candidate – should be able to say that he will do what he believes is right for Connecticut not what’s right for either political party (much less an observably narrow slice of a political party, a number of whom don’t even vote here) without having to fend off a fusillade of insults, accusations and threats. Seems like a very sound way to represent your constituents, too.
By way of illustrating just how cut off some of these folks are from reality, this tidbit from none other than the illustrious Matt Stoller of MyDD in the wake of Ned Lamont’s historic upset of sitting United States Senator Joe Lieberman:
If white progressives, disaffected union members, and blacks strengthen the informal alliance that's being created in this campaign, there's not a Democrat anywhere in the country who can't be beaten in a primary.
What planet could Stoller be living on? What do these groups share other than perhaps a temporary and weak alliance of antipathy? News flash, big shot – we identified this as a strategic problem in the seventies (about ten years, not incidentally, after the Republicans published a friggin' manual on the subject)! Can you say Republican hegemony?
What could diversity in the blogosphere reasonably mean? If it doesn't mean diversity of opinion, diversity of doctrine, then what remains? And if liberal blogospherists do mean that, then they are coming right around and meeting themselves without, somehow, seeing it coming. The liberal blogospherists, if they are talking about diversity of opinion - which is what a truly liberal community would mean - are going to have a very uncomfortable "Pogo moment": We have met the enemy, and he is us.
Ideology is fundamentally, irreducibly, and always about power. All ideology develops within the metaconversation of dogmatism, that is the problem with all ideology. Dogmatism produces ideology, ideology demands intolerance, and intolerance justifies lots of nasty stuff like, say, hating someone because they have different color skin or facial features or religious practices than the ones you believe are correct.
Heads up "liberal blogosphere", your entire project is about to implode into a black hole of hypocrisy.
I guess there is good reason to be unfamiliar with the firmament of liberal blogospherists and their paralell universe...