there is a conflict here... it is much in the end like you want a progressive board... without pesky progressive sensibilities... and you rely on what to justify that? "it's not open" and "it's not free" and "it's property"... all true as a matter of fact.
but it's a real problem, your approximation is wrong in kind, not in degree, THESE contradict...
"with an overtly progressive viewpoint" contradict, ... and by the way a fully Democratic viewpoint.
You force equate these two concept through force of will and arrive only at an illusion that they can be united the way you hope.
It is not about purism, I myself am quite conservative, quite libertarian... it's not about progressive purity, but rather fidelity.
In fact, I hope you were paid to mention him again or you should not have given him another free advert.
the whole "not contruing endorsement" thing is bullshit by the way.
there is no doubt but that "follow the money" is a core progressive ideal, no doubt. It has served us well and will continue to, and anyone that says, "but don't look behind the curtain" for progressive blogs... that somehow following the money doesn't matter... will find people continue to look behind the curtain because they SHOULD.
the thing is, will you seek out those voices that described the real machine all along?
no, you will continue to think you can know better, that people describing the patterns right under your nose are merely... mistaken, or... something.
you've made some silly assumptions... stabbed in the front is right, and it was clear as a bell all along.
and it's also why it's a grave mistake to save philosophy for after an election when they are free to use their own philosophy.
a political promise is NEARLY WORTHLESS, but no promise at all is TOTALLLY worthless.
conservative dems have a choke hold on the party because they arbitrate everything by threatened and actual cooperation with conservative allies in the Republican party. We should EXPECT them to do that, it's not betrayal... that's what they REALLY BELIEVE! When you think a pro-life candidate is going to help your pro-choice agenda, YOU are the one expecting betrayal from them!
Like all con games, it was the mark's greed that brought them in, not the "betrayal"...
my angle is I'm tired of the self-agrandizement and confusion about leadership and "merit".
This is democratic politics.
"There is nothing to stop other people from working hard and finding a niche, especially if they can own a big story."
You say this after describing Hamsher's 16 hour days. I personally do not believe that people that can spend 16 hour days on the internet are really people that represent the rest of us, I can't consider a politics that disproportionately favors such a person "netroots" and citizen voice... it's a hell of a selection function when the real context is national politics.
Sure, it's a great way to select people to RUN COMMUNICATIONS outfits known as community blogs, sure, we need people that can be on 16 hours a day for that purpose, for the purpose of giving voices to OTHERS.
We needed community blogs run by people that desire to give voices to others, and we've overshot that, and it is in the hands of the best workaholic self promoters with palatable writing styles.
the reason is... you can measure lots of things, but "merit" is not one of them, especially not in a political context.
each person's "merit" in a democracy is normalized to one, specifically, one vote.
a lot of confusion abounds... being a good writer is not merit, politically, being popular, certainly certainly certainly, NOT merit, politically. Valuable? Oh sure, but not merit.
it is not possible to have a meritocracy, but once again we have a system whereby people achieve a status for certain characteristics... and they are bound, as are their fans and readers, this is finally "merit" which our system has detected, they can then "represent" us and write posts about how "if you are good enough, you have the same chances"... all with the assumption that merit is concrete and further more, all sorted out.
having disproportionate power, in the name of the people, does not equate to leadership, but it does attract criticism, as it should.
We have not tried to forward power to the large groups involved... say with democratic systems, and if that's because it's impractical, or whatever (just don't wanna), fine... and so people answer for the concentrations of power.
Such questioning is the progressive way, as is "question authority" and "distrust authority" and "fuck authority".