"TPM Cuts Female Writer Not Making Case for Obama."

That's how Linda Hirshman tells it. She publishes her email exchange with Andrew Golis, her contact at TPM:

Linda to Andrew: "So why did I not make the cut? Is writing for the times and the Post not good enough for TPM?"

Andrew: "It's not a matter of prestigious clippings, Linda. We're trying to both keep long-standing contributers [sic] around and flesh out the discussion by involving people who are covering things we're not yet addressing."

Linda: "And do you have a lot of contributors covering the female voters, who are likely to determine the outcome of the election of the President of the United States? I am assuming it's not that you don't want anyone who's not already in the tank for Obama. I am serious, here, Andrew. I think this is a real mistake; I have a point of view you don't have much of, I am getting increasingly prestigious opportunities to write and opine, and this is the moment you should capitalize on your relationship with me, not drop me."

Andrew: "I'm not sure the accusation of bias is particularly helpful. For now, like I said, we're focusing on getting our long-standing regulars and folks covering things we don't on the blog. I recognize that you think female voters should be one of those things, we disagree." [emphasis mine]

But look at how Hirshman was introduced to the TPM crowd on October 7, 2008:

Linda Hirshman joins the TPMCafe Coffee House, and kicks things off with the first of a three part series on liberal principles.

A three part series. I don't get what the actual arrangement between Hirshman and TPM was, but she's exposing herself to some serious criticism if she's misstating the situation. And the email does speak for itself — albeit in the voice of someone who is not saying everything he thinks.

Let's see if Golis responds to her invitation to slam her on line. Pretty nervy of her to ask for it like this. But you can be nervy when you're getting increasingly prestigious opportunities to write and opine.

***

TPM is driving me crazy with its date format. Right now, Josh Marshall has a post up dated "04.10.08." Judging from the post underneath it, that's a mistake, and he meant 03.10.08. Hello? This isn't Europe. It took me 10 minutes to realize that the October 7th post I linked above wasn't March 10th. Every damned post over there begins with a tiny testimony to bad judgment. It's an American blog. Write American.

CORRECTION: I'm wrong about the date format. Sorry. I got confused by a combination of the incorrect date on their top post and my assumption that a post from October was really from March.

ADDED: I'm almost glad you got the chance to see the fury I would unleash against any American who would adopt the European-style date format. Not really. I'm terribly sorry. Mainly for the clutter. Whence this blog ethics that keeps me from deleting the error? It's a strange and powerful blog ethics that binds me.

AND: It's TNR that drives me crazy with the European date format, not TPM. See, for example, here.