You missed the best bit in that Daily Caller article:

"Journolist founder Ezra Klein, a staffer at the Washington Post, says he “tried to be very strict” in making sure no active political operatives joined Journolist. “It’s possible I missed someone,” he explained in an email.

In fact, he did. Jeff Hauser wrote scores of posts on Journolist during the time he was managing the New Jersey congressional campaign of Democrat Dennis Shulman. Hauser didn’t do much to hide his affiliation. Indeed, his posts on Journolist were signed, “Campaign Manager, Shulman for Congress,” followed by the campaign’s web address. After the election, Hauser took positions at a 527 group and a political action committee. He never left Journolist."

Oh, wait.... I'm probably taking this out of context. :D

There's certainly no excuse for the Journolisters, but I'm wondering when this brief halcyon time was that journalists were journalists first and partisan second. As a professional historian (one of my many hats) I've spent a good deal of time dredging through old newspapers and what we're seeing now is nothing compared to the vitriolic partisanship exhibited in newpapers ca. 1900. Back then you knew who owned your newspaper and you knew you'd better suck up early and often. The newspapers themselves were often the "Republican Rustler" (still in existence!) or the "Democrat and Chronicle" (ditto). Frankly, I'm thinking this notion of aloof non-partisanship in journalism is just part of the nonsense that journalists have been peddling ever since journalists were the town storytellers and gossips.

"No serious journalist has defended the leak of my private e-mails; no one who works in politics or journalism would accept a situation where the things they said off the record could immediately become public."

Ah! Here's the link I was searching for:

"A senior military official tells ABC News that Rolling Stone broke journalistic ground rules established for the magazine’s profile of the general by publishing comments that occurred during what McChrystal’s aides thought were off-the-record sessions that would not be reported." http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/06/m...

Doncha hate when those journalistic double standards come home to roost?

You wonder why jounalists everywhere didn't give Hillary a belly laugh for her "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" remarks? Now we know it's because at least a few hundred of them were members of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. As if we couldn't have guessed.

"... no one who works in politics or journalism would accept a situation where the things they said off the record could immediately become public."

So you'll be loudly denouncing what Rolling Stone did to General McChrystal? And when 60 Minutes or 20/20 or Mike Moore ambush someone who doesn't even know they're talking to a "journalist" that's BAD, right? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

You've represented yourself as a libertarian to libertarians and now we see from your little Easter egg man that you're certainly not a limited government, fiscally conservative libertarian. You've represented yourself as a conservative to conservatives and then call them rat f**kers behind their backs. You've represented yourself as a liberal to liberals, apparently just in an attempt to be 'one of the gang'. Somehow I get the feeling that you're just a phony and an opportunist with no real convictions beyond "all glory to me". And now it sux to be you. Damn, don't you hate when that happens?