Somewhat along the lines of the post below, what is one to make of the fact that The New York Times ran an article exclusively dedicated to the fact that Hillary Clinton changed her schedule to be able to attend a smaller "breakout session" with bloggers (each yKos attendee was asked to pick one candidate's session to attend) in a smaller-group format than you'll see at the big presidential forum? I mean, how interesting is a politician's schedule change? Not that interesting, I would think, but the Times may well know its readers much better than I do.
Incidentally, at a panel on public opinion yesterday, Chris Bowers made the point that there's actually nothing particularly surprising about netrootsian dislike of Clinton. Clinton's strongest constituencies -- working class women, Hispanics, etc. -- are grossly under-represented in the blogosphere. One would expect any group of Democrats who are disproportionately prosperous, disproportionately well-educated, disproportionately male, and disproportionately prone to self-ID as liberals to be a group with much less love for Clinton than the party as a whole has.
| 
Heads in the Sand
MY,
But why? Why do successful white liberal males dislike Clinton? And don't give me this anti-woman crap. It has to do with her policies and not being sufficiently liberal enough(in my opinion).
Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | August 4, 2007 10:00 AM