Thanks, cscs. I disagree that making an endorsement would compromise TPM's journalistic integrity. As you mentioned, most newspapers do it. Moreover Josh and other TPM journalists don't hesitate to express personal opinions on other issues. I love TPM for the levelheadedness of the journalists, but they don't pretend to show newspaper-like neutrality. They just seem to be reticent on this particular issue.

It's true that an endorsement would give ammunition to some bias-screamers, but would it increase their volume or prolificness? I'm not sure about that. A cautious and well-reasoned endorsement might actually undermine their bias conspiracies. Certainly, it would undermine one side of the debate.

That said, I don't have a great reason why TPM has to endorse. Though not the NYT, I expect that TPM could influence no small number of readers. But mostly, I'm curious, and I always appreciate Josh's reasoning, whether I agree with it or not, so I'd love to hear his reasoning on this, the most important controversy of the last few months. (Frankly, I'd even be happy to hear his reasoning for not making an endorsement.)

I concur that TPM should not endorse. Its reporting But, if TPM were to make an endorsement it should be for Clinton. Clearly any serious reader can see that she's a winner capable of winning in the fall. Plus, taking a cue from Obama's camp, they are already conceding defeat, why choose a loser?

While I wouldn't mind Josh saying, at any time of his choosing, who he'll be voting for, I don't expect it or particularly want it.

As for a TPM endorsement, if there were to be such a thing, I'd hope that a poll of the community would be part of that.

But overall, I'm much happier debating with you all here than in making collective pronouncements or in looking to Josh for leadership, despite his many talents and intellect.

For what it's worth, there definitely won't be any endorsement. Either from me or the site. But I don't want that to come off as dismissive. I appreciate the question and interest. Reading over the comments, I think I agree with the commenter who said it's just not in my DNA. I don't think it makes sense for the site's mission. And on a personal level it would feel presumptuous. It's not just a matter of my keeping something secret. I try to keep myself uncommitted even in my own head, because I think it allows me to be more open-minded and less rigid in how I evaluate the race.

I did not think it was going to happen, and I am glad to learn Josh will not be endorsing.

One thing that helps me feel more at liberty to just say what I think is not using my real-life name but posting under a consistent handle instead. I'd have too many consequences to consider otherwise and I would end up censoring myself.

I think as a generalization the less self-censored people who want to be thoughtful feel when they post the better the quality of the site is likely to be.

As for denizen opinion, it's hard to escape the prevalence of pretty much pure advocacy posts for either Hillary or Barack at the moment. Maybe a single thread where denizens are invited by management to give their view, and try to keep it to 2 or 3 paragraphs max? There are many fellow denizens here whose preference and reasoning I actually *want* to know--but am not at all sure where I would find it!

I'm disappointed in TPM yet again.

For a while now it's been getting harder and harder to look at TPM main site as being a real part of the blogosphere. It feels like it has tenuous ties to the left at best.

Perhaps that's why TPMCafe was started, to give the more partisan/liberal impulses a place to come out, but the way things are on the main TPM site... I came to this site for Josh Marshall's opinions and blogging and I've gotten that less and less as the years have gone on.

It feels faintly like betrayal.

I think that, out of respect, Josh should only endorse after Mitt is offically out of the race.

:)

I came to this thread to post my own preference for no endorsement, and I'm gratified that for once I appear to be of the majority opinion, and that I'm in line with Josh's as well is even better.

Like CSCS, I didn't think Josh would want to endorse anyone in the primary, and I'm very glad of that. I don't need TPM to recommend to me who to vote for, but I do value the opinions that Josh and the other bloggers here have to offer on the news of the day and on the positions, strategies, and actions of the candidates themselves. I depend on their take to help me make sense of the bare facts. If they were not officially neutral, I would find those opinions much less valuable.

slb

I came to this thread to post my own preference for no endorsement, and I'm gratified that for once I appear to be of the majority opinion, and that I'm in line with Josh's as well is even better.

Like CSCS, I didn't think Josh would want to endorse anyone in the primary, and I'm very glad of that. I don't need TPM to recommend to me who to vote for, but I do value the opinions that Josh and the other bloggers here have to offer on the news of the day and on the positions, strategies, and actions of the candidates themselves. I depend on their take to help me make sense of the bare facts. If they were not officially neutral, I would find those opinions much less valuable.

slb

(My apologies if this ends up being a multiple post. I keep getting timeout errors when I click "Send". Geez, Josh, you had to pick just before Super Tuesday to put in new software??)

Yes! Contrast Josh Marshall's approach with Paul Krugman's: it's possible to be opinionated and even partisan without being a shill. While I still respect his analysis, Krugman has lost a lot of good will and trust with his single-issue anti-endorsement of Obama.

I think we've already seen the TPM endorsement. On the main page today, the headline reads: "It's a Draw: Clinton and Obama Split Super Tuesday Showdown." It links to the most Hillary-centric, biased coverage I've seen so far. The article it links to is on MSNBC, where the headline screams: "Clinton wins California, most other big states." They could have linked to any post election coverage on the Internet. I think their choice speaks for itself.

The MSNBC article essentially paints the race as a vast win for Clinton, spoiled only by stupid DNC rules which may (gasp!) actually award some delegates to Obama.

For weeks, I've watched in dismay as TPM vainly attempted to give legs to the Rezko story by linking to every article they could possibly find, while completely ignoring newsworthy stories like this one about Hillary's record lobbyist money donations (a story which has been widely cited everywhere but here):

http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=332

I'm pretty sure I know who TPM is rooting for. I only wonder whether it's lack of spine or lack of integrity that keeps them from tipping their hand.

To the bias compainers, hrebendorf and Greenley Greene: Most of the comments here declare "no bias". Of the two who assert bias, one says it's for Obama, and one says it's for Clinton. That 50%-50% split approximates what I've seen overall on the site. So you have to wonder, how is it that half the comments who complain of bias see it one way and half the other way?

The one factor that seems consistent across all these bias complaints is that the complainers invariably identify very strongly with the candidate which they perceive the bias to be against. So I think that I'm on solid ground when I say that there is an extremely clear correlation between a strong political identification and the perception of bias against the identified candidate. Such a correlation suggests (surprise, surprise) that people who accuse of TPM of bias are in fact themselves very biased.

So before you launch your next caustic attack on TPM's imbalanced reporting and threaten once again to cease reading the blog, please think to yourself: Who is in fact more credible, [insert TPM journalist] or me? Maybe, because of my strong opinions, I only notice the stories and headlines that favor my candidate and not those that favor the other.

The moral of this story is that your emotion-laced accusations do not reflect on TPM; they reflect on you.

PS I'm not saying that a news source can't be demonstrably bias (think Fox News), but screaming out "bias" every time an article or headline seems to favor the other candidate does nothing to demonstrate that. If you really want to argue bias, then go through all the bias complaints posted (by all sides) since the primaries began, and then post a thoughtful analysis on your blog.

The trend I see is that people who are emphatically in favor of a given candidate or position often tend to decry a bias in the opposite direction in all sorts of places.

There are plenty of sites out there that are "cheerleading" for their candidates. It's shameless and it's obvious. TPM is not one of those sites. It may be impossible for a journalist to completely exclude personal political preference from reporting, but that doesn't mean that the attempt shouldn't be made. I have not seen any examples of "advocacy reporting" here, though I have occasionally caught glimpses of some personal views from various reporters here on the site. And I think that the different reporters have different attitudes to the candidates.

I think it's been very clear for the past few weeks who Josh has been supporting. But the big question is, now that Mitt Romney has dropped out of the race, to whom will Josh switch his support?

For those of you who support Barack Obama, PLEASE go to

www:freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm

These are his own words from his book, friends and family. He was right when he said that no politician is clean. He is just as dirty if not more so than the rest. Some new change. He is not an outsider he's in the Senate. Why did he go along with supporting the war once he had the power to vote against it? What a hypocrite. I feel sorry for those who were taken in by him.

He has taken the great words of JFK and MLK and used them for his own. What a fraud. Yes the U.S. desperately wants change. They want change from George W Bush and it doesn't matter who it is. Obama wants you to believe in the words that he says but it's not what he believes in his heart.

What happened to comments I was working on? I was not finished or had I edited it.

I gotta say no. I've been going to TPM since the crazy times of 2000's hanging chads and the following Bush insanity, because Josh rarely dropped the news analysis ball. Analysis in journalism doesn't mean pure opinion -- which folks like Americablog.com (I go there, too) dwell -- it means looking at the facts with a clear point of view. Some opinion is involved, but ultimately it shouldn't overshadow whatever the facts may be.

Opinions get overheated (we see them here between the "Hillarybots" and the "Obamamaniacs") and facts get forgotten. I wouldn't want to see that happen here.

Please, no endorsement. I value this website for its analysis and don't want this to turn into the mess that Dkos has become.

Oh by the way - here's my new photo. Hope you like!

Ghengis:

As much as a enjoy reading your comments, I can't say I follow you on this one.

I kinda dig that TPM is sort of like a respectful, wild west. By having no "official" endorsement, everyone gets to read whatever bias they want to.

The site then becomes a Rorschach test on the reader.

Besides: we all know this site always seems biased against our candidate of choice, right?

A brief comment on the longevity of this thread. I introduced my post as a petition in order to engage readers and encourage a response from TPM staff. It seems to have succeeded on both counts, which is great. Unfortunately, the ever-increasing number of recommendations (due to petition "signatures") has had the side effect of keeping this post at the top of the recommended list for some time, even though the comment discussion has dropped off. If TPM sees fit to manually remove it from the list, I won't be offended.

No endorsement. By free association -- there is a connection -- I wish that Wes Clark had resisted the temptations, glittering tho they may have been, to endorse Clinton and thereby, in my view, greatly weakening his influence and role in this election cycle. I think TPM would also suffer by an endorsement.