Bloggers try to invite in portions of their personal lives to make their voices more authentic and more credible. They deliberately soften the line between what is and isn't too personal to share publicly. There's an element of trust there between blogger and reader; between bloggers and other bloggers. There is trust that the elements of one's personal life that aren't shared through the blog won't be researched and made public by others. Part of that idealism and trust comes from being a young community - that shared sense of common cause, of looking out for each other.
What can cause this to break down? Spiteful personal relationships. Political interests. Community breakdowns (the blogging community isn't so young anymore... being connected as a "fellow blogger" isn't such a powerful idea anymore...).
I'm amazed it hasn't happened more often. Welcome to 2008. It's all too easy to practice the "politics of personal destruction" (sharing embarrassing personal details) on bloggers, since they don't have the protection of celebrity or power. All you need is a few opening salvos. Then you'll experience some true blogwars, that will potentially have a chilling effect on the voice of blogging itself.
Looks like I got quoted in the Daily Journal of Commerce - my basic point was that having a multi-disciplinary understanding helps one to create better solutions, since there are more points of connection to draw upon. It's a fact that is relevant to all spheres, from politics to software engineering (my firm). The interview was part of an article by Peter Wright, an expert on education and technology that directs new media for University of Phoenix.
Now that Lamont has defeated Lieberman in the primary, and has therefore properly and solely claimed the mantle of Connecticut's senatorial Democrat in the upcoming general election, I'm mystified at some of the calls for Lieberman to define himself.
To me, all seem excessively focused on Lieberman, even to the point of visualizing him being in the Senate next year. It gives Lieberman too much power to allow for that possibility, or even to give Lieberman the opportunity to define himself.
It seems to be a no-brainer for Lieberman to define himself as a Democrat. That's what he's done all along, and the Republicans are happy with him for it. There's really no great political cost for him to define himself as a Democrat, even aggressively so. He's in campaign mode, and he has a long career behind him of capitulating to Republicans, so I seriously doubt that it will turn off the few Republicans he needs to win.
I'm not sure if it's best to continue to emphasize the contrast between Lamont and Lieberman, or to simply ignore Lieberman entirely and focus on Lamont's strengths, but this whole bit about how emphasizing how Lieberman is also a Democrat seems dreadfully counterproductive to those who want him to lose.