"Once more - RUN AWAY!", hyperbole?

Repetitive expounding on power law dynamics is one thing, but polemics is another. What exactly in this statement is false:

"hundreds of thousands of Americans get involved and let a debate happen in this country again that wasn't happening"

Are you claiming that there are not hundreds of thousands of people reading talkingpointsmemo, dailykos, calpundit and such?

Are you claiming that there is not a significant number of readers who participate in comments/postings?

You've claimed before that blogs have been hyped as a platform for advocacy and lay journalism, and there is plenty of evidence for that, but are you now claiming that blogs have had no influence on our culture?

Sorry, but you seem out of touch. Many people do not read newspapers anymore, but do read McClellan disgracing himself with charges of "gutter politics" on blogs. Lots of people split their reading between newspapers and Slate (or whatever).

What happened to the cat idea? Getting back to something real, if you put up a tip jar, your readers would surely pony up to buy you a small kennel and digital camera!

Name your first darling _snarky_, just a thought.

Sean, look at it this way: Do you really think that his statement is meant as:

"There's a reason George Bush is vulnerable today and it's because of [a very small number of blog A-list press and quasi-press pundits who publish their material on the Internet]"

Do you see the problem there would be in this statement? The ludicrous absurdity of it?

I'm claiming it's pure political pandering, demagoguery at its worst.

What do you mean by "influence on our culture"? Sure, I think there's plenty of shifting around in our culture, in the sense of 'zines becoming net journals, more online diaries, chat-boards, etc. But I sure don't think that's any reason Bush is vulnerable, in the sense that the Wall Street Journal and Rush Limbaugh talk-radio made Clinton vulnerable. And again, let's distinguish between the few A-listers with some power, and the masses who get contribute to the debate by saying "Ditto!" (or echo).

As to the cat idea, seriously, I don't think I want the responsibility of taking care of one these days. I know some bookstores-with-cats think it more that pays for itself in terms of drawing customers. But honestly, here, how many readers can cat-pictures be worth? Though I do have in mind an "algorithmic" post about cats I should get around to writing.

"Name your first darling _snarky_, just a thought." - Like "Triumph the Insult Comic Dog"? ("Snarky, The Pundit Blog Cat") :-)

Hey, snarky as an attitude works for a lot of people. But, on "Getting back to something real" from a different angle, I think I'm not much of a success as a pundit. I should get back to Google-watching and similar, that's somewhat sustainable, and even profitable.

"Do you really think...": In stark terms, it seems like more hype, doesn't it?

But the fact remains that people have been turning to The Daily Show and Slate and Talking Points Memo for news because it's clear that traditional outlets have not been providing critical coverage of our government.

The Wall Street Journal is a joke, outside of business coverage, why would anyone waste time with it. Rush Limbaugh? His schtick should have a bozo, whirlie-whirl track with laugh punctuation--and yet, traitor Robert Novak has stolen his femi-nazi line.

I think blogs have been a populist reaction to right-wing talk radio (ever-so-close to _hate_ radio).

Again, it's lay journalism and punditry, and as a _collective_ force, counter-acts reactionary oppression of dissent, e.g. if you protest the Patriot Act, you're aiding terrorists.

As for cats, I really enjoy the pictures on Calpundit, but I am not sure if there is some magic involved or if Kevin Drum just has a knack for feline photography.

Bookstore cats, sounds like fun, not very Barnes & Noble though... The only bookshop pet I recall is The Grolier Poetry Book Shop's pooch.

Hello