I can’t believe I’m using all these words in the same sentence but here goes: Patrick Ruffini has an interesting post over at Hugh Hewitt’s blog. (Gulp.) It’s about the relative power of the left/right blogosphere and he sums up with this:
Paradoxically, I wonder if this won’t be a better year for the rightroots after all, and for the same reason that 2003 was good for the netroots. People don’t much like the candidates and are generally pissed off. With the candidates so evenly bunched, won’t the small edge that the rightroots can provide matter more? The netroots may be larger in absolute terms, but their task — toppling Hillary — is many, many, many times larger.
I agree with the first thought (the rightroots are angry and something to rally around) but wonder about the concluding one. I know HRC is not super popular among lefty bloggers but I don’t think there’s a movement to “topple” her — at least by any large faction of the netroots. If anything, they seem bent on making sure the MSM coverage of her is fair to the point of flattering (on that note, I will always treasure this straightfaced headline from Media Matters: “Time.com’s Cox latest to attack Sen. Clinton on her voice”).
But maybe I’ve missed something. Anyone have some insight?