Some a-list liberal bloggers have refused to support the grassroots candidacy of Chuck Pennacchio, who is challenging rightwing Bob Casey for the Democratic party's nomination in Pennsylvania's senate race. They usually won't admit it, but they don't think he's a viable candidate.
Why?
Money money money.
Yet the same bloggers who've neglected the Pennsylvania campaign are devoting endless bytes of bandwidth urging their readers to support Ned Lamont in Connecticut, who is challenging Joe Lieberman, an incumbent who is politically somewhere to the left of Bob Casey.
At first glance, that doesn't make any sense at all, unless you realize that Ned Lamont is independently wealthy and will finance a significant portion of his own campaign.
Therefore, class, viable=wealthy. Got that?
So much for the blogosphere's vaunted ability to shape elections in America. And so much for actually advocating change in the sleazy electoral process that results in politicians in both parties beholden to special interests rather than voters.
If these same bloggers were advocating as strongly for campaign spending limits, for strict contribution limits, for government-funded elections, I might hesitate to accuse them of hypocrisy.
But I don't hear any serious calls for fundamentally changing the way elections are funded and conducted. Perhaps because several of them are already on the campaign gravy train.
Won't it be funny when we crash the gates and find out all we have is a broken gate?
