Surprise! MoDo flunks blogosphere history

NYT columnist Maureen Dowd advertised her ignorance regarding all things liberal this weekend with a column in which she attempted to dissect liberal politics. But like so many Beltway A-list columnists, Dowd doesn't seem to know much about the topic, mostly because she seems to hold it in such contempt and therefore has no reason to understand its history. 

Dowd's lack of knowledge was especially highlighted in this `graph [emphasis added]: 

W.’s reign of error so enraged Democrats that they were bound by one desire: to get rid of him. Bush, Cheney and Rove inspired the Democrats to spawn a powerful lefty tower of babble led by Rachel Maddow, Michael Moore and the blogosphere.

Democrats gave birth to the blogosphere? As in, professional politicians and Dem Party activists? That, of course, is inaccurate. As in, completely inaccurate. 

The liberal blogoshere was created in spite of Democrats. Meaning, the liberal blogosphere, manned by lawyers and housewives and students, and white collar workers, etc., was spawned because liberals were fed up with Democrats, and especially their 2002, 2003-era timidity in the face of Bush's high polling numbers.

Indeed, what made the creation of the liberal blogosphere so ground-breaking and radical was that it represented a titanic shift in left-of-center politics that had nothing to do with "Democrats." And in fact, Democrats were often dragged into the conversation kicking and screaming. (Note to MoDo: You kind of missed the whole point.) 

As blogger Tristero noted at Hullabaloo: 

Let's get real: if, today, there are actual liberals with anything resembling a public face, it is in spite of the Democratic party, not because they spawned us. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Except, I suppose, in the negative sense. That is, during Bush, the Democratic party (and the press) were so cowardly and incompetent that someone had to speak up.

UPDATED: On an unrelated note, this passage from Dowd was just weird: 

The lefties came to the defense of the centrist Clinton during impeachment. Now that Obama is under attack, however, they are not coming to his defense, even though he has given more to the liberal cause than the scandal-stunted Clinton ultimately achieved.

Note to Dowd: I'm pretty sure that if Republicans in Congress try to remove Obama from office using the radical tool of impeachment, "lefties" would defend the president. But since impeachment's not currently being played out in Congress, the comparison makes no sense.