You can't have it both ways, Ed Schultz

[BobcatJH]

I read with great interest that Ed Schultz is spitting mad that Sen. Hillary Clinton's people "treat us like dirt". Says Schultz, who today met with Sen. Barack Obama, "We are constantly disregarded, told things that aren't true, and given speculation an interview might happen someday. Quite frankly, I'm sick of it. This morning I watched Hillary Clinton tell CNN she is accessible. What? To the TV cameras yes, to the base of loyal listeners on progressive talk radio, absolutely not!"

Let me be the first, Ed, to tell you that you can't have it both ways. Further, that what goes around, comes around. Remember the 2006 election, particularly the race for U.S. Senate in Connecticut? Then, you made quite a stink about the blogosphere and its support of Ned Lamont. You even accused the netroots of backing Lamont versus Joe Lieberman as a result of the 2004 election. That's right. Revenge.

"This is all about Iowa and Howard Dean and how Joe Lieberman really, relentlessly went after Dean and the bloggers have never forgotten it," Schultz said last July, later adding, "He was aggressive. He went after Dean on every position. And the blogosphere obviously mounted the attack and the support of Howard Dean, obviously because he's a grassroots guy and he represents what he claims to be the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. ... But I think there's a little angst in all of those on the far left in dealing with the blogs and I believe it has morphed into something even bigger than that, to the point where 'It's all about Lieberman and we're going to prove it and we're going to do a get-back.' This seems to me to be a 100 percent get-back."

I asked then how you could be so misguided on the issue. "How could someone like Schultz," I wrote, "who clearly has his finger on the pulse of many Americans, show such a tin ear for why many - including the blogosphere - oppose Lieberman." It had nothing to do with 2004, Ed. It had everything to do with sending an actual Democrat to the Senate, not a Bush-supporting, dishonest sham of an elected official. Even before the broadcast in question, you had questioned the netroots' motives. All the while, with regard to the Lamont/Lieberman race, you chose to cozy up to a phony centrism that could more accurately be described as "being a closet Republican".

But now you're fed up with Clinton, another centrist? Though nowhere near Lieberman in terms of her rhetoric, Clinton is by no means cut from the same cloth as a John Edwards or, to be sure, Dennis Kucinich. Problem is, Ed, you can't claim to speak for progressive America and be this upset that Clinton isn't yet keen on speaking to your listeners. Just like you can't claim to speak for progressive America and so blatantly support a hack like Lieberman. Make no mistake, I think it would be sound advice to counsel Clinton to appear on your show. But don't feign outrage when your pandering to centrism comes back to bite you.

In a related twist, it should anger you even more, Ed, to know that while she's not appearing on your show, Clinton is planning on speaking directly to the people this week (starting tonight) in a series of live Webcasts. Imagine that, a presidential candidate making a point to speak to we extremists before she appears where America comes to talk. Welcome to people-powered Democracy, Ed.

[wryter2000]

1. Typical Schultz

For him, it's all about what access he has. He was the same way with Howard Dean at one point. That was the first time I turned him off. It took me a couple of times of turning him off to do it permanently. The last time was when he did the whole three-hour show on violence in pro basketball. I'm fine with some sports, but three hours?

[wisteria]

2. Clinton should talk with him. I doubt the Lamont issue is the underlying cause of the snub.

Oh, and I heard, and please correct me if I am wrong, the question and answer session is live, but the questions have already been submitted and approved for an answer. If that is the case, I ask you what type of honest dialog will result? Will she be answering even negative questions or only the questions she wants to answer?