You may have noticed that a lot of the people being most virulent about Erick's CNN gig are folks who don't have, won't have, and probably can't have CNN gigs, or anything like that (the highest that they aspire to is to get on Maddow once) and it's not unreasonable to assume that this probably bugs them. They're in the Left-sphere, remember? Beyond a certain point, there's no advancement; the activist Left have all the tame blogs that they need, thanks, and they'd prefer to develop the ones that they have than let new ones be created.
But if you're in that position you don't want to think about it, I suppose. I certainly wouldn't, if I was in their shoes*. So they've told themselves that it's because they're too edgy for the MSM. Too in-your-face. It's the price that they pay for keeping it real with their rough language and uncompromising style. So it's OK, really; they can't be blamed for being too hardcore for television. So when Erick gets a CNN gig, after calling David Souter a goat-f*cking child molester? Well, they can start screaming about the situation, or they can dispassionately admit to themselves that the real reason why they're not on TV is because they suck.
You tell me which is a more attractive option to these people.
PS: Jim Geraghty was thinking along the same lines. Which you'd already know, if only you subscribed to his Morning Jolt...
*Why don't I have a CNN gig? Because, by CNN's standards, I suck. This doesn't particularly bother me, as you may have guessed.
Crossposted to Moe Lane.