I haven’t got time today to do a Yearly Kos wrap-up; I’ll try to get to it in the next couple of days. In the meantime, though, you can read two actually quite good articles by our mainstream media friends. Here’s the NYT’s Jeff Zeleny, and here is the Globe’s woman-on-the-scene, Marcella Bombardieri. The Globe article is particularly good. And kudos to the Globe for sending a reporter out to Chicago to cover it, instead of just relying on wire services.
That said, I’d nitpick just a couple of points in Bombardieri’s article. First, this passage
Hillary Clinton, who during the YearlyKos-sponsored debate made a surprisingly spirited defense of taking lobbyists’ money, even reversed her plan to skip part of the program in response to being booed.
is not quite accurate. As Bob and I noted in yesterday’s posts, the confusion over whether Hillary was going to attend the breakout sessions was largely the fault of the Yearly Kos organizers, who subsequently apologized for it. Second, this quote
“We’re really glad they’re here, but we don’t care that much about what they have to say,” said Tom Tucker, a math professor at the University of Rochester who maintains a blog called rochesterturning.com.
struck me as odd, and probably unrepresentative. To the contrary, I think most attendees cared a great deal about what the candidates had to say. A good number (Bob and I included) remain undecided in the presidential sweeps, and were hoping to use the convention as a big part of our decisionmaking process. This was not about having the candidates kneel to kiss the ring of the blogosphere. It was about trying to find out whether the candidates share the values that are important to us.
But those are small points. In light of Bill O’Reilly’s bizarre and unrelenting campaign to depict YearlyKos as a convention of haters, and of the MSM’s frequent confusion about what political blogging is really all about, I was very happy to read both of those articles.