Brad DeLong is waaaaaaay to kind to Daniel Glover
quoting only "Jerome Armstrong, Peter Daou, Tim Tagaris and Scott Shields certainly see themselves as revolutionaries, and I suspect most everyone on the list does."
Matt Stoller [attn Mr Glover Matt Stoller not Jerome Armstrong -- they are different people] has a fuller quote showing either that Glover is illiterate or that he thinks you are so he can get away with the most feeble attempt at deception that I can recall.
Brad's question (as quoted)"Which of twelve webloggers you named yesterday do you believe *billed themselves as* revolutionaries who disdained to work for candidates?"
his rude dishonest idiotic non answer
"Jerome Armstrong, Peter Daou, Tim Tagaris and Scott Shields certainly see themselves as revolutionaries, and I suspect most everyone on the list does. I never said or implied that any of them [note absence of "billed themselves as" or equivalent] disdained to work for candidates. That's obviously not the case because all of them DID work for candidates."
If this man honestly thinks that he can find a (a second ?) person stupid enough to believe his assertion that DeLong claimed that he claimed that they honestly non hypocritically did in fact disdain to work for candidates, then he is just too dumb to be a reporter, or a hack or a hack reporter.
The guy needs help finding a job he can do (from his argument I think he might need help in distinguishing his humerus and his gluteus maximus).
Oh wait now I understand. He interpreted "billing" as in "billable hours" not "top billing" and is trying to figure out what it has to do with a "duck's bill."
Looking around the web, all I can say is that Danny Glover better be glad that snark is not a lethal weapon.