Clueless, Part . . .

which part are we on?

Dan Gerstein is not someone I pay much attention to. I know the name, but he doesn't seem to have much to say to me. Here's one reason why.

But the reality is, as I experienced over and over again in the Lamont-Lieberman race, this is the liberal blogosphere’s standard-less operating procedure. They have decided that the best way to fight the “right-wing smear machine” that they so despise is to create an even more venomous, boundary-less, and destructive counterpart and fight ire with more ire.

It also goes to show just how deeply most liberal bloggers believe that Republicans and conservative are morally illegitimate, and as such, any criticism or argument made by the other side is on its face corrupt and dismissible. If it is said by Catholic League President Bill Donohue, who has a history of controversial statements himself, it automatically becomes invalid, no matter the inherent integrity of the underlying proposition.

What these liberal bloggers fail to appreciate is that this petty, polarizing approach is not how you ultimately win in politics – especially in an era when most average voters outside the ideological extremes are fed up with the shrill, reflexive partisanship that dominates Washington, and when the fastest growing party in America is no party.

The blogger bomb-throwing may be good for inflaming the activist base, and, as they demonstrated in the 2006 Lieberman-Lamont Senate primary race in Connecticut, for occasionally blowing up the opposition. It’s not bad for bullying your friends, either, as the liberal blogosphere did last week in pressuring Edwards to not fire the two bloggers who penned the offensive anti-religious posts.

But the typical blog mix of insults and incitements is just not an effective strategy for persuading people outside of your circle of belief – be they moderate Democrats, moderate Republicans, or the swelling

Now remember that Gerstein was one of Lieberman's advisors in the last campaign. Yes, that Lieberman -- Karl Rove's favorite Democrat. Tell you anything? In case it doesn't, let me put it this way: Gerstein is to Democrats as Napoleon is to Russia. I can't think how anyone believes this man is anything other than a clown.

I'm trying to figure out which liberal blogs he's reading. If any. This sounds like something you could find on GayPatriot. Seriously -- it's one of those major reality disjunctions where I just scratch my head and sit there wondering what he's talking about. I think he must be angling for a job at The Corner. (Oh -- I just noticed that this appeared on Politico, the Drudge Report's little sister. That explains a lot.)

Now, this is a piece from mid-February, and if we look back a few months, we can see how badly liberal bloggers alienated the vast middle-of-the-road electorate. Oh, right. . . .

A lot of fuss was made about that survey that showed that liberal bloggers use more swear words than conservative bloggers. I wonder what the results would have been if there had been a survey on who uses more ethnic and gender slurs.

And then there's Tim O'Reilly, who wants bloggers to subscribe to a code of behavior. I know O'Reilly has a long history with the Internet and the blogosphere, which makes it all the more surprising that he's missed the point so badly:

It's not about being nice. If you want "nice," go to tea at Marshall Field's with the white-glove ladies. It's about full, unresrained dialogue (or simultaneous monologues, as often seems to be the case). It really is the free marketplace of ideas, which, although it may dismay pundits like Gerstein and O'Reilly, works. Ask Don Imus about how well it works.

I'm really starting to believe that bloggers like Digby and Atrios and Glenn Greenwald are right. The pundit class has even less idea of what's really going on in the country than the preznit does.

Clueless. Totally.

(Please note that Gerstein also thinks Imus is a liberal. ??? Oh, wait -- that's the latest buzz on the right. Got it.)