I read your book earlier this month, and I recently criticized it in a post that was my attempt to start a conversation in my corner of the netroots. After seeing that you had written an article about the progressive blogosphere in an issue of Democracy I saw at a book store, I got this crazy idea to send you a link. My post wasn't widely read by any stretch of the imagination (and you've likely heard some of this before) but at any rate...
http://www.progressiveblue.com/diary/3308/

The relevant portion of the post is below.

...

The Democratic base is held to a much different standard.Take, for instance, The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers, and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics, by the New York Times' Matt Bai. The book is basically 300 pages of Bai triumphantly knocking down straw men and picking low - hanging fruit while making a circular argument. The author's ability to jump into a series of shallow pools was widely applauded. This isn't exactly surprising. Nothing pleases Broderites like an intellectually dishonest critique of the progressive movement.

We're asked what we stand for. When we answer, we're accused of being too rigid. We're asked how our values translate into public policy. When we answer, we're told that "everyone likes those things." If we point out that
congressional Republicans don't, we're scolded for being "too partisan."
We're asked about political strategy, but regardless of the answer we give, we're criticized for being "too focused on tactics.

...

If you would be interested in examples, I took a few notes on the book. Why would you want to debate your books with some random blogger guy? Not sure. Would be able to refrain from making the Rock of Love: Bus comparison I left in my notes during a moment of frustration? I'll try. Do I think your work "effin' sucks?" No. Do I think your good points are mixed in with what some might call "shitty meta?" Yes. Would you think my writing "effin' sucks" and / or is a waste of your time? Not sure. It's a possibility. I also have a different take on the diary by then - Senator Obama you praise in your book.

I wrote this screedifesto in December.

http://www.progressiveblue.com/diary/3308/

Thanks for your time.

Do you wish you could increase your online leads? Getting a GUARANTEED 1ST PAGE GOOGLE RANKING is easier and more cost-effective than you might think. We have helped a lot of businesses thrive in this market and we can help you! Simply hit reply and I’ll share with you the cost and the benefits.

I find your writing brilliant and insightful because you agree with most everything I think. I was just telling some colleagues that, in politics (and life), we need less Bill Clinton and more Pat Nixon. You know, be stoic, be proud, suffer in silence, drink. What happened to respect for dignity, self-control and endurance? I just heard on the radio about the Edwardses being on Oprah, and I felt like I needed to take a shower. People have enough crap in their life, why do they want this dumped on top? Why are the Edwards doing this? Why is Oprah letting them? We get the picture . . . it's not too complicated, and not that unique. Why are they spilling their guts about this? How does it improve society? Mrs. Edwards doesn't need to salvage her reputation, and I don't think they need the money. They have children to raise, and her health to take care of. This should not be a priority. Is it really that impossible for people to give up the limelight once they've had a taste? (Arlen Spector) Why do media titans cater to this deviance? Why can't we look away?

I was very happy about your book. It provided information I needed. I used it in a "Brief" which I've written (about 60 pages) called "Ecocide as the Principal Dysfunction of Government and the Economy and Why Democratization is the Only Effective Solution". I am trying to decide on people and organizations to whom I can send this for their information. Please let me know if you would like to see it, and if so, please give me a mailing address. Also, please let me know if you recommend anyone to whom I should send it. I was planning to send it to Andy Stern, but from what I see posted on the internet recently, I am questioning whether he would really be interested. But what can you know from the internet? Please get back to me as soon as you can.

I became a huge fan of your political reporting during the '08 campaign. (It's crazy how intensely the country followed the election last year, right?) But even though the honeymoon is over, and I've stopped obsessing over purely political reporting, I still automatically and reflectively read stuff that carries your byline.

All of which is to say that I was disappointed with your Sunday Times Magazine piece re politicians on Twitter. Your pieces usually illuminate for me a unique perspective. But this latest seemed to be another standard, tired critique of Twitter. Moreover, you missed an angle that, as far as I know, has heretofore gone unreported. You referred to Claire McCaskall. She's really into Twitter and Tumblr. Which I find interesting because Fred Wilson -- managing partner at Union Square Ventures, investors in Twitter and Tumblr, @fredwilson on Twitter, avc.com in the blogospher, fredwilson.vc on Tumblr -- contributed to her '06 Senate campaign (he frequently blogged about his support back then).

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm a huge McCaskill fan (I live in California, but stayed up past midnight on election night '06 getting updates on her chances from my fellow Democratic family members in St. Louis). And I've been reading Wilson's blog since late '05/early '06.

But still. A politician unassumingly uses the technologies of which a campaign contributor is a major investor, and such undisclosed use contributes to a flurry of media attention to said technologies, which presumably adds to the value of said technologies, and increases the probability that said investor/contributor makes a healthy return from said technologies.

Now, there's a NYTimes piece on Twitter that might actually be worth reading :)

I've just quickskimmed your article on Newt and will read as soon as possible but just to share I realized recently that Newt is a Republican or such version of Al Gore. I didn't see that connection mentioned in your article and wanted to share, along with the interesting connection between the "departure and return" political theme you noted and the technological version of such you noted in the piece w/the airline business description. You may have made either of these points, I just didn't spy them in my quickread and wanted to share.

To all those who have written to me in the past several days, following my latest cover story on Newt Gingrich. I recently changed the e-mail settings for my nonblog mail, and it's now come to my attention that none of the mail has been getting to me. I'm not sure where it is--floating around in cyberspace, I guess. I've changed it back for the moment, so if you've written to me in the last week or so and are checking here for a response, please do send again and excuse my technological incompetence. I'm working to get it all sorted out. Thanks, and sorry.

That was one of the funniest pieces I have read in a newspaper in a long time. (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bai3-2009feb03,0,79....) If I could, I would pass it on to my friends. Great work.

Kudos!!

I just got done reading your Obama Blackberry column. That is funny stuff. Non-maliscious, non-meanspirited, non-political, non-racist. Non-anything that might offend "political correctness" sensibilities. Just good clever humor. I frequently found myself laughing out loud and each "blackberry entry" just seemed to build and was better than the previous entries.

Funniest thing I have read in weeks. No, months. No, years!! (Well, you get the picture.)

In this time of depression/recession and with the economic bad news being unremittingly on the front page everyday, this column was a bright spot and safe harbor from the constant bad news.

Please keep up the good work. Until today, I had not heard of you nor read any of your columns before. I'll be sure to immediately correct this oversight and I'll keep an eye out for your by-line from here on out.

It was regrettable that you presented these emails as real. They had not a single ring of authenticity. Even the 'recipients" of the email -- Gates and Clinton -- were impossible and contradicted the purpose of his retaining this text connection to old friends. How dumb do you think we readers are?