As you point out, David Hill's piece ignores the differences between political talk radio and blogging. But it also tries to compare the single most successful political talk radio host with a composite entity: "most bloggers." The fact that you had to call out the "two most influential bloggers" is indicitive of that fallacy in Mr. Hill's article. Thus the piece is out of focus in two directions at once. His litany of the factors that have contributed to Mr. Limbaugh's success sounds reasonable enough. And I'm willing to entertain the idea that some of those factors, if properly translated, might apply to blogging. But the logic in that article is too muddled for me to take it very seriously.