In her article today, Ginia Bellafante didn’t call Occupy Wall Street “pantomime progressivism” — an improvement — but it seems she still doesn’t quite get what’s going on in Lower Manhattan.

Bellafante’s lede refers to Occupy as “ideologically vague and strategically baffling.” It’s as if she were trying to justify her previous superficial coverage by blaming protesters for not handing her a hardbound manifesto and a diagram of all direct actions they are planning.

Bellafante isn’t giving up on her notion that the event, in its early days, wasn’t worthy of coverage. The main point of her new article — headline: “Every action produces overreaction” — is that Occupy Wall Street is growing and spreading to other cities only because the cops did such a clumsy job of containing it.

And she can’t contain her Maureen Dowd-style snark for long. At one point, she mentions Michael Moore being interviewed in the park on Wednesday and adds:

In the preceding 48 hours, the endorsement of the left’s ruling class had been secured: encouraging words from Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein had been sent to the group; visits were paid by Susan Sarandon and Cornel West.

The left’s ruling class! As if most of the protesters in Lower Manhattan are major fans of Chomsky, or have even read him. As if the millions of people who are jobless and/or homeless are left-wingers waiting for Naomi Klein to tell them what to do. As if Bellafante doesn’t know that the “ruling class” in this country works in the Wall Street office towers and has nothing to do with the left.

Note to Ginia’s editors: Where the f*ck are you guys/gals when B. files her copy?

Progress, maybe: An article about the arrest of 700 protesters yesterday on Brooklyn Bridge actually made it into NYT’s print edition today, albeit on Page 18. But it made me wonder how many other stories involving that many arrests in NYC would not have made The Times‘ front page.