It is pretty much Forbes conservative's wet dream of what they wished influenced liberals:
Barack Obama's inauguration was the formal point at which the reigning ideology in Washington changed from "conservative" to "liberal." We use those terms without apology, as they are used in American political discourse.Most of the people on that weak list had little to do with driving the last couple of elections and nothing to do with liberalism.
Broadly, a "liberal' subscribes to some or all of the following: progressive income taxation; universal health care of some kind; opposition to the war in Iraq, and a certain queasiness about the war on terror; an instinctive preference for international diplomacy; the right to gay marriage; a woman's right to an abortion; environmentalism in some Kyoto Protocol-friendly form; and a rejection of the McCain-Palin ticket.In Depth: The 25 Most Influential Liberals In The U.S. Media
In recognition of the role played by the media in our national debate, Forbes.com nominates, here, 25 of America's most consequential liberal journalists and media personalities.
4 comments:
Yeah, I saw Sullivan, Hitchens, and some nobodies on that list. Not surprising coming from Forbes.
But did you read that caption for Sullivan? It said he sees everything through a "gay" prism. Wow.
The fact that most on that list are moderate conservatives, and a few more are centrists. 2 or 3 them would be considered liberal by any liberals. (Maddow, I have to say, is undeniably Liberal on many issues...)
The people on that list that "liberals" take seriously? Jon Stewart, Maddow, Marshall, Sullivan, Moulitsos, Hitchens may get taken seriously on a few subjects, and beyond that the rest are jokes to most of the left, never mind liberals.
The list is a conservative's wet dream.
I should say, "and beyond that the rest are jokes or unknown to most of the left, never mind liberals."
I should add Yglesias to the list as actually, ya know, being influential. Not necessarily being one.
Post a Comment