Bless the wankosphere
Jane Hamsher riffs about the wankosphere:
Back in the last century, I always thought one advantage Democrats had, ironically enough, was that many candidates had to learn to make do with less. This wasn't always the case, of course, and there were and still are many shades of Democrat, but I always liked our chances when we had at leat 2/3rds as much money as a Republican and a good candidate. Republicans always had to have nice offices and could certainly afford things (like plenty of phone lines) that we couldn't.
The internet has equalized that somewhat, and even led to Democratic candidates having more money than Republicans in many cases. More importantly, perhaps, the netroots has allowed people to test their ideas, and yes, argue, amongst themselves. Kind of a "marketplace of ideas," something the cons used to love. Now if it doesn't talk about clapping louder and hating on the gays, they don't want to hear it in many cases.
Here is where we all add the usual disclaimer about blog triumphalism: it's not the whole ballgame, it's just a small part. But it's a relatively new part, and as people smarter than me figure out new and interesting ways to use it, it will only help our cause and thus our country, at least until Soros gives us our money and we screw everyone. I want one of those yachts that goes over 70 knots, those are kewl.
There's also a pretty good article in the Washington Post by Jose Antonio Vargas about how the GOP lags well behind the Dems when it comes to an online presence. There have been rumors for quite some time that members of the GOP speak privately about what a bunch of useless, embarrassing wankers Malkin, Instahack, the Power Tools, Red State etc. are, so it's amusing to see that they're coming out of the closet about it, so to speak.Ouch.
I don't know how much of the abject mediocrity of right wing blogosphere is attributable to the fact that, as the Post article notes, the authoritarian, top-down ethos of the modern GOP is antithetical to the "often chaotic, bottom-up, user-generated atmosphere of the Internet," and how much can be placed at the feet of a bunch of second-tier minds artificially sustained by wingnut welfare that causes the talent pool to be clogged by enormous, stinking turds floating on the surface and choking out any possibility of quality writing or original thought from rising to the top.
Ah, the great questions of the ages.
Back in the last century, I always thought one advantage Democrats had, ironically enough, was that many candidates had to learn to make do with less. This wasn't always the case, of course, and there were and still are many shades of Democrat, but I always liked our chances when we had at leat 2/3rds as much money as a Republican and a good candidate. Republicans always had to have nice offices and could certainly afford things (like plenty of phone lines) that we couldn't.
The internet has equalized that somewhat, and even led to Democratic candidates having more money than Republicans in many cases. More importantly, perhaps, the netroots has allowed people to test their ideas, and yes, argue, amongst themselves. Kind of a "marketplace of ideas," something the cons used to love. Now if it doesn't talk about clapping louder and hating on the gays, they don't want to hear it in many cases.
Here is where we all add the usual disclaimer about blog triumphalism: it's not the whole ballgame, it's just a small part. But it's a relatively new part, and as people smarter than me figure out new and interesting ways to use it, it will only help our cause and thus our country, at least until Soros gives us our money and we screw everyone. I want one of those yachts that goes over 70 knots, those are kewl.
