Obviously a significant number of bloggers are perfectly transparent in that their forums are more like chat boards, or places for the author to vent, or offer simple gut reactions to events. But as the blogosphere has matured, many of the bloggers presume to be political analysts or at least political activists. Some, such as Andrew Sullivan and Michelle Malkin are career professional political analysts.

Sullivan was one of the first in the rush to print, wondering aloud if the "Exodus Ministries" -- part of Miers's resume -- referred to the "ex-gay" group. The names are similar, but shouldn't someone of Sullivan's stature at least pause for a minute before assuming the president would nominate a judge affiliated with such a controversial and marginal group? In Sullivan's mind, at least for a minute (or long enough to write about it), the president's non-support of gay marriage, and other sins real and imagined, has made him capable of something that foolish. Certainly such a reaction would not have seen the light of day with the luxury of The New Republic's lead-time to print.

Ah, but the Internet is ephemeral. Later, a confirmation, retraction, and explanation, making it all OK. But how many readers saw the first post, and not the correct explanation? Isn't it just as important in the blogosphere, as in the MSM, to get it right the first time?

Sullivan updated his blog more than a dozen times Monday with quotes and tidbits from others. Just as in the "MSM," what you choose to print and what not to print says as much about your biases and perspective as what you do print. Sullivan has been obsessed, Maureen Dowd-like, with unrelenting criticism of the president, and that impetus shows in Monday's offerings.

Here are more examples of things said by bloggers -- some are readers' comments rather than the publishers' -- that we suspect will be regretted in the future, or at least will help to drag down the bit of credibility that the blogosphere has built in the public consciousness:

"Bush is a gutless, abortionist liar. I spit on him." (Reader at redstate.org)

"We're not even that excited about the possibility of her being gay." (www.wonkette.com)

"Harriet worships the president and has called him the smartest man she’s known. She’s a pretty good lawyer…. This president can be bamboozled by anyone he feels close to." (Marvin Olasky quoting an unnamed Christian conservative -- so much for unnamed sources being the bane of MSMjournalism.)

And then of course the blogosphere offers us things like this: harrietmiers.blogspot.com, which make the stereotype of the unemployed pundit wannabe in his underwear seem not quite so outlandish.

The blogosphere gave us lots of quick reaction in the morning, a bit of circumspection in the afternoon, and still, very little analysis. On the left, Atrios left us scratching our heads: "I have no idea what kind of judge Miers will be.... All we do know is she's a reliable Bush fixer." On the right, several saying they'll reserve judgment. Reserve judgment? What's the point of punditry then? In the half-day that has passed, couldn't one of the bloggers -- especially one of the pros -- actually have done some real research to get some insight on what this woman is all about? She did run for public office at least once. Candidates generally leave a record.

Or, if one doesn't know about Miers, at least discuss how presidents have often been surprised by the judgments of their nominees once sitting. Or about the utter politicization of the confirmation process. Or analyze why a president would feel compelled to choose someone without a "record," if you think she has none. Or maybe a good old-fashioned analysis of judicial restraint versus judicial activism. The posts of many bloggers and many commenters to blogs indicate that few people understand those terms at all.

This would have been an opportunity to educate, because the choice of a non-judge lacking obvious ideological (as opposed to interpretive) consistency, and proven allegiances in the past to the opposition party, bring up some of the great historical issues about the court and the nominating process.

But instead, we get Bush as a gutless liar, speculation about Miers sexuality, and that she is a "Bush fixer." Congratulations, people.

In the blogosphere, it's obviously still more important to know and regurgitate what others are saying, which for the most part so far has been nothing.

One thing we do know about Supreme Court nominees is the lack of predictability of future behavior lent by their judicial track record and "experience," as if anybody aside from federal appeals judges can really be said to have extensive experience deciding federal constitutional questions. Undoubtedly, the various news and politics magazines -- the charter members of the mainstream media -- the Newsweeks, the Times and the US News & World Reports of the world will point this out, and will discuss in depth the very complex nature that is the history of constitutional jurisprudence. Harper's, The Atlantic, Esquire, American Spectator, The Weekly Standard, Reason, The National Review, The New Republic, The Nation, The Sunday New York Times, The Washington Post Weekly, et. al., will collectively do it even better.

Blogs have the immediacy of television without the time and content constraints. They have the ability to analyze with the depth of a magazine, but with the speed of television. So why didn't that happen?

My hope was that the blogosphere, with its collective passion, immediacy, and sheer numbers, would have done that today. It didn't. If political blogs are to have a future beyond fun and (meager) profit, that will have to change. The question for the blogosphere is, was yesterday merely evidence of growing pains, or is this it?


*This quote was originally incorrectly attributed to PoliPundit, not Instapundit. We regret the error.