Matt Stoller is a nice guy and a dedicated progressive Democrat. But there is growing evidence that his ego is expanding faster than the universe did after the Big Bang.

Exhibit A is Stoller's endorsement of Ned Lamont. Normally, when you endorse someone, you write about the person you're endorsing. Sure, Ned Lamont is mentioned a few times. But the article is really about Stoller, right from the jump:

So I've been promising you a Lamont meeting recap, and here it is.

As if any of Stoller's readers care about his past promises to write something? Please.

In all honesty, I did not expect to support Ned Lamont. 

As if any of us care about Stoller's expectations? Please.

When I wrote The Risks for the Blogosphere of Taking on Lieberman, I outlined the set of risks that we carry in going against someone who is well-entrenched and popular in their state. 

Like it takes a genius to understand that taking on a world-famous Senator who has won all his Senate races by a landslide is a challenge. Please.

By now, you might have noticed a pattern: the word "I" is only 1-3 words away from the start of every sentence. And the next sentence doesn't disappoint:

And I was expecting to go to Connecticut...

And so it goes...

A generation ago, excesses of egotism were met with derisive remarks about "me, myself, and I." Out of curiosity, how many times do those egocentric words appear in Stoller's blog about Ned Lamont?

29 times.

I fear the Internet, as vast as it is, is not big enough for Matt Stoller's ego.

Happily, Stoller's verbal egotism is balanced by his financial generosity... or is it?

And I'm going to make my donation, proudly, not just against Joe Lieberman but for Ned Lamont. I'm going to give $500, which is a lot of money for me. But I want to have skin in this game, I want to be part of this victory, and I want to be able to say that I was there when Ned Lamont first decided to beat Joe Lieberman and put America back on the road to a bright progressive future.

Apparently by giving $500 to Ned Lamont, Stoller will be able to claim that Stoller won the election almost as much as Lamont did!

Clearly Stoller needs to get a grip. If Lamont wins - and I'll also be sending him money to do my part - it will be because (1) Lamont spends a lot of his own money and runs a great campaign, (2) progressive Democrats who live in Connecticut volunteer, contribute, and vote for him, and finally (3) progressive Democrats outside Connecticut help out too. Stoller will be able to claim $500 worth of #3 - plus a chunk of the money he helps raise through his excellent "Netroots Candidate" campaign - but taking credit far beyond that will be just another example of Stoller's ego being out of control.

Exhibit B is Stoller's attack on an article in the Hotline by some rightwing idiot named William Beutler, which begins:

A few weeks after the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, the unsuccessful filibuster attempt led by John Kerry is already ancient history in Washington. But for the left-wing bloggers who had strongly urged Democrats to support the filibuster, it remains a singular moment. Many of these Internet grassroots activists -- the "netroots," as they call themselves -- had already supported primary challenges to the Democratic establishment's favored candidates. But in the wake of that loss, there is a renewed determination to oust party moderates, known to many of these bloggers as "Vichy Democrats."

As rightwing analysis goes, this isn't so far off. The Alito betrayal by 19 Democratic Senators was a singular moment. Hundreds of thousands of progressive activists had spent months calling, emailing, and faxing their Democratic Senators to oppose Alito and to support a filibuster.

And even though Karl Rove (invisibly through the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the rest of the Corporate Media) declared Alito's nomination a done deal, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy decided the lifetime appointment of a rightwing ideologue to the Supreme Court was important enough to begin a filibuster. So progressive activists picked up the phones for one more weekend's worth of calls trying to persuade 39 of the remaining 43 Democratic Senators (including Jeffords) to join Kerry and Kennedy.

We ended up with 25 votes against cloture, which is 23 more than we started with, but 19 Democrats betrayed us. As a result, I may live out my days living under a neo-fascist Supreme Court led by John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Sam Alito.

But apparently Stoller is outraged that someone reading Beutler's article might think (horrors!) that Stoller supported the filibuster.

There was in fact a fair amount of heterodoxy on Alito, from me to Chris Bowers to Kos to Steve Clemons to Jane Hamsher to John Aravosis to Booman to Effect Measure to etc....  All of us agreed Alito was bad for America, but Chris Bowers, John Aravosis, and I overtly rejected the last-minute filibuster call as cynical pandering.  At no point did 'Vichy Democrats' come up in a serious discussion of the filibuster.

As a measure of Stoller's ego, he apparently believes that if he didn't utter the phrase "Vichy Democrats," no one did. But actually one of the most energetic pro-filibuster blogs was called... Vichy Democrats! Zut alors!

Stoller was then - and remains today - wrong about Alito. Kerry and Kennedy's call for a filibuster was not cynical pandering. Anyone who watched their speeches - especially Kennedy's - saw their deep passion for justice - not to mention their horror at Bush's dictatorship. I don't watch C-Span very much, but I found their speeches moving - even inspiring.

So let me conclude this post with a simple message: Matt Stoller, the progressive blogosphere does not begin and end with your ego. You're a valuable part of it, but it is much bigger than any of us - in fact it's bigger than all of us bloggers together.

Can you live with that?

Update 1: Steve Gilliard takes credit for coining the term "Vichy Democrats" more than a year ago:

The reason I chose that term was simple: to describe Democrats who routinely embraced GOP ideas and positions to attack other Democrats. Remember, Vichy not only rounded up the Jews, they hunted down resistants and sent troops to fight for Hitler.

Oh, and I've used the term for over a year, in fact I didn't use it at all concerning Alito.

My point in using the term was to highlight how these Dems pledged fidelity to the party, but by their actions, provide support to the GOP. People like the DLC, who not a day, a day after the election, went after the Dems and listed their flaws. Or Democrats who kept pushing "values" as code for abandoning abortion rights and gays.

These people, by their actions, weakened the party and people's support for it. Exactly how Vichy operated, trying to curry favor with their new rulers, even at the cost of their own country.

Well said!!