| Now, I'm sure there are both Hillary and Barack hacks, but my own reaction is to simply scratch my head, regarding some of Hillary Hacks.
Cases in point - Jeralyn at TalkLeft, to a lesser degree Big Tent Democrat at TalkLeft, Larry Johnson at TPM, Jerome at MyDD.
These are people that, even though they have had strong opinions who (in my mind) basically are not honest in their posting.
For the last few years, one of the things that has sustained my interest in the progressive blogosphere, is the idea that WE, as a reality-based community, are both passionately advocating progressive policies and principles that reflect reality, are honest, and that, well, respect the TRUTH of something.
This is as opposed to the RightWing sound machine, that will smear and lie and dissemble, at the drop of a hat, without any regard to principle, fairness, or grasp of real priorities, with an abiding sense of "IOKIYAAR".
For the most part, this has worked out.
But in this democratic contest, we now see the all too human mode of hackery, raise it's head, in the place of passionate, yet informed advocacy, laced with integrity.
Jerome, who writes CTG, and yet turns his back on the principles of CTG, when embodies by someone who he doesn't want, and turning to the candidate that, by most measures, is using the 90's style of campaigning that he railed against.
Jeralyn, who can with a straight face, advocate that Michigan should be seated "as is", and pretend that is a manifestation of Michigan voters. (She has the same stance on Florida, but there IS a much more valid argument for that.)
Big Tent Democrat - who claims himself as a "tepid Obama supporter", but most every post he writes is a criticism of Obama, or an advocacy of a Clinton position.
Larry Johnson, who has thrown objectivity to the wind, in his smearing of Obama.
The things is, this is crossing the line. The trustworthiness of these voices, to make decisions based on the data, is compromised. And won't be less compromised, once we have an Obama candidacy, if we do so. And this has an effect, for example, with Larry Johnson, who I used to trust as an unbiased source on intelligence issues. But if he is proved a hack in one area, how do I know he isn't a hack in another? Same with the others.
But for the most part, because this is the primary season, these HACKS (and feel free to chime in with Obama hacks), will maintain their voices, and every be given respectful hearings, AS IF there isn't a question of hackery.
But, being the good liberal I am, I see the other side. I've only pointed out Hillary hacks. What about Obama ones? Well, who are the Obama ones? You've got people MoDo, Frank Rich, MSN, etc, who bash Hillary unceasingly, and a majority of the time unfairly. But there isn't so much in the blogosphere, at leat who I read. But, do I already have filters, because of a pro-Obama position? To what degree does that color my judgment?
All I can do, is remember that the "hacks", get less trust, when reading them. And remember myself, to not trust the quick hit piece, and to get more information on anything those people say.
In the end though, I simply stop reading or commenting on those "hacks" because I don't trust them.
And thus the little "mini-worlds" of self-chosen information, keep to the same clubs.
And I probably miss information and arguments, perspectives, that would help to inform and enlighten me. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. |
STATE BLOGS
