baggage.jpg

(Photo of dinosaur avec hot pink baggage, long blonde wig and matching feather boa via halliew.)

Lieberman mouthpiece Dangerstein, concern troll extraordinaire, claims that Senator Clinton "invite[d] scorn and hypocrisy" by appearing at FireDogLake for a chat about pay equity:

Gerstein said he understands the Clinton camp wanting to reach out to lots of potential voters, especially women. But given that Clinton, "under the microscope to a much higher degree of scrutiny," Gerstein said, "I don't think this was necessarily a good idea for her." He suggested that Clinton's decision was particularly politically dangerous in light of the senator's vocal criticism of Don Imus after the shock jock's racially demeaning comments about the Rutgers women's basketball players. Clinton could have chosen a blogger with "less baggage," Gerstein said.

But, wait.  Didn't Danger say just weeks ago that if Imus lost his show, it would be bad for Democrats? Digby reminds us:

I can hardly believe it. McJoan catches Joe Lieberman's advisor, the civility commissar Dan Gerstein, defending Imus out of a grave concern for the ramifications to the Democratic party.
"This is a real bind for Democrats," said Dan Gerstein, an advisor to one of Imus' favorite regulars, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). "Talk radio has become primarily the province of the right, and the blogosphere is largely the province of the left. If Imus loses his microphone, there aren't many other venues like it around."

Dangerstein's right, of course! The American airwaves are sadly empty, now that Lieberman can no longer appear on the baggage-free venue that was Imus:

Lieberman worries, on the Senate floor, that the increasing vulgarity of network TV "is lowering the standards of what we accept on television, particularly in what used to be family programing hours." But he's talking out of both sides of his mouth. This week's moments of supposed humor on Imus, broadcast at an hour when children are rising for school, included a reference to Attorney General Janet Reno in crotchless pantyhose, an interview with Screw Magazine's Al Goldstein and a drunken woman saying "s---" over the air. Teehee. Lieberman is alarmed that some child watching an 8 p.m. TV show might hear the word "hooters." Yet he legitimizes, by his regular presence, a radio show that will fill the child's ears with far more vulgarity, sly racist jokes, gay-baiting and all-around bad taste than the child is ever likely to hear on TV.

Evaluating where any candidate should appear, especially in the rough-and-tumble blogosphere, can be a difficult choice. Like you, I was delighted that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton accepted Jane Hamsher's invitation to come to the Lake to talk about gender pay equity on Equal Pay Day. And I hope our Democratic Presidential candidates won't start listening to Dangerstein about blog-venues and where to appear.  Because, when it comes to baggage, Dangerstein's got an American Tourister matched set. UPDATES:

1. Garance Franke-Rute wonders if Dangerstein is a masochist, and she includes advice on how he can avoid scratching his blog war itch, unless it's too late for that.

And the worst part is that every time he goes after them they fire back with such a volley that I can’t imagine the exchanges do anything but make his Google cache more polluted.

2. Glenn Greenwald challenges Akers on both her sourcing and her attribution:

What much of this is about is a rank, transparent effort to make liberal blogs radioactive to candidates. Journalists like Akers are threatened by the fact that candidates can communicate directly with large numbers of voters without having to go through Washington Post reporters. So they manufacture blog "controversies" by seeking out completely unrepresentative aberrations like Dan Gerstein and pretend that their individual comments are representative of large factions. In reality, people like Gerstein are totally irrelevant figures who represent literally nobody (except, in Gerstein's case, non-Democrat Joe Lieberman). Any stories about alleged "blog controversies" that rely upon Dan Gerstein as a key source are inherently unreliable and worthless. Dan Gerstein hates blogs. That is his identity. It is how he attracts attention. Whenever he criticizes blogs, it is not a story. It does not signify anything other than this.

Glenn also accurately characterizes the Clinton thread, at least the thread I saw happen in  real-time: 

Clinton then participated in the comment section of the post, responding to questions and comments from FDL's bloggers and readers.

3. "Danny" at National Journal cherry-picks comments from FDL's Clinton thread to support his contention that commentary somehow differed from any Guest Appearance or BookSalon thread where on-topic is the rule:

Critical readers seemed most annoyed by the fact that Firedoglake limited the questions asked of Clinton to the equal pay topic she chose to discuss.

(This one's worth a click if only for a peek at the self-appointed evaluator of who should appear on what blogs. Is somebody still bitter about not being invited to Harlem for lunch?)

Although she won't blame Clinton for Hamsher's blackface disgrace, Althouse criticized Clinton's decision to blog at Hamsher's site. "Firedoglake is a hardcore place, and Clinton doesn't belong there," Althouse said. She also scoffed at the suggestion that Clinton guest-blogged. "The blog is publishing a press release."

4. Just in case you thought MaryAnn Akers was an edgy blogger unconnected to the DeeCee journamilzm clique, BigHeadRob reminds us that she's a RollCall alum betrothed to Michael Isikoff.

-- So, to recap: time for yet another Blogger Ethics Panel focused on what blogs are worthy of candidate appearances. Panelists: MaryAnn Akers, "Danny," Altmouse, and that anonymous Clinton backer with the raised eyebrows. Dangerstein can moderate.

LAST UPDATE:  You didn't miss TRex's Late Late Nite "Stalker" post, did you?