if i may extend the point you make:

while it is helpful of kluger to point out that bloggers are a subset of voters which are a subset of people, it’s unclear what that insight reveals.

indeed. i could only figure out that he got his logic, along with panties, tied up in a bunch.

you are probably referring to this strange sentence in kluger's piece:

lieberman's boomerang reminds us that voters represent a meager percentage of the total populace — and that bloggers are an even tinier subset of that group.

to which i said in response:

uh, bruce, in an election, voters are the only ones who count. the larger set of "people, including those who don't vote," doesn't really factor into whether lieberman or lamont get elected.

in other words, bruce, why bring up how big or small the subset of people who actually vote is when discussing the outcome of an election? if only one person voted, and voted for lamont, who cares how big the subset was? lamont won, jackass sir.

And if you feel like doing some reading, may I suggest this, this, this and this.......

The counter thought on this would be to track the record of MSM endorsements. If memory serves, most CT papers endorsed Lieberman in the democratic primary. Which I think will be interesting to see how they come out in the general election. If they switch their endorsements to Lamont, they show themselves to be tools of the democrats. If they don't switch their endorsement, then they will not be loved by the left. Of course, given their track record of endorsements influencing the election, it really doesn't matter.

As far as snakes on the plane, the only references I saw to it were what I took to be scoffing ones. That the movies was based on a pretty thin premise and was an example of the bankruptcy of good ideas Hollywood seems to enjoy.