I get so tired reading these pieces by people who get paid to write about blogging. Micah, take it away Gilliard has more. Glover is very proud of this comment on Talk Left:

"I think that this information is important. I want to know who is behind these new political powerbrokers. ... Transparency as a political principle doesn't stop at the gates of the blogosphere. Especially since established bloggers are now taking in and spending seven-figured sums of political money, meeting former presidents and being interviewed on CNN on Election Night. If I were a blogger, I wouldn't attack the messenger here but rather ask some serious questions about credibility."

I just love when people who write pieces about bloggers randomly pick a comment that they feel is beneficial to their cause. He found me out. I never told you about my trip to CNN or my phone call with a former President. Oh wait---yes I did, Wanker. The National Journal should thank their lucky stars they have a reporter as good as Murray Waas. WhiskyfFire has more....And as Atrios says:

There are so many ways to write articles casting bloggers in a poor light. First, invent arbitrary ethical or journalistic standards which apply to no one else in the universe, and then show how bloggers violate them. Second, assume beliefs and motives of bloggers, lumping them all together, and then invent charges of hypocrisy. Third, invent arbitrary benchmarks for accomplishments which if achieved prove bloggers have superpowers, but if not achieved prove they are teh suck. Fourth, elevate an invented concept of "civility" as an all-important value. Fifth, the practice of "nutpicking," attributing the comments in unmoderated comments sections to the blogger him/herself.

I'm sure there are more.

By the way, no candiate or campaign has offered me any money to help them out, so I guess I'm just no good, no good, no good.