LOL. Silly.

When someone invents point-of-view neutral information, let me know.

*goes back to sleep*

Are you reading the same blog that I am? I always thought Josh was sympathetic to Hillary.

Mike, to paraphrase, reality has an unfortunate bias against Clinton in this election.

If you can point out any specific inaccuracies, I am sure we could have a productive discussion.

Josh doesn't have to spin anything to be anti-Hillary.

The facts start out that way.

i dont see any evidence of a pro-obama slant here at tpm among the staff. Granted, a lot of the readers and commenters are obamaniacs.

if anything, i think there's a pro-hillary slant among the staff at tpm, although, they've gotten better the last few weeks about keeping it contained.

Recommended and seconded 1981.

Josh is not objective in the sense of being non-partisan; he's all about the party.

He stayed neutral as long as both candidates were campaigning in a way that had a chance of advancing the Democratic agenda. For the last eight weeks, that hasn't been the case. So, as Genghis says, his observations about the Clinton campaign have become increasingly pointed.

If you want news without any point of view, read USA today. If you want news with an intelligent left perspective, you're going to have to deal with the consequences of an intelligent left perspective.

Just a little constructive criticism: Whenever you levy charges against someone, it helps to cite some examples. Maybe a few TPM excerpts with your comments explaining how they are biased toward Obama and against Hillary. Because I really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I think Mike's point is that Josh is a phoney and a hypocrite. He didn't have the balls to openly back a candidate the way other bloggers did, but he still pushes his candidate any way he can. I think Mike is wrong. I think Josh can't figure out who to back. And he can't risk being wrong.

Being critical does not mean giving both candidates equal criticism, regardless of how big or small; it means giving criticism that is warranted. Hillary simply has earned more warranted criticism whereas Obama has not.

I agree with Mike1981 that Josh Marshall is sometimes clearly biased against Hillary. Sometimes he's neutral, however, although when I first started reading TPM in January, I'd expected he'd always be neutral.

I quickly learned that I was wrong.

Josh's live blogging about the last debate, for example, was initially very judgmental about Hillary's scrappiness:

8:44 PM ... Hillary: The Republicans are so bad that I have to become one to save the Democratic party.

8:48 PM ... Can Hillary just come out and embrace a culture-war, swift-boating campaign against Obama? Please? Instead of this gonzo Lee Atwater by proxy stuff? Sigh...

Fortunately, his ire soon shifted to Charlie Gibson. But the problem is, I don't know if Josh really understands what weight his opinions and even his snark (like the above Lee Atwater reference) carry for his readers. His musings are revered as sacred text to some at TPM. How do I know this? Because I have seen Josh's leanings get repeated in the comment threads (without substantiation or credit). His opinions get repeated as fact. That's a problem, of course, when he says something that's factually incorrect:

I've always been highly skeptical of Hillary Clinton's argument that she's a stronger candidate in rural areas and red states. But the pols who know these areas best seem to be even more confident she's wrong than I am.

That was said right before the PA primary.

Or this:

the candidate who wins on points in a debate often doesn't come out with the best result.

While the last debate was not her best performance (even though she won), Hillary often excels in the debates. She has the ability to be what I would describe as presidential. I've often wondered if her debate performances contribute to the decisions of the "late breakers" who overwhelmingly vote for her.

Anyway, if you can present an easy (and I mean easy) rebuttal to Josh's position, then you know he's being biased. For some reason, he's very stingy about giving her any credit.

I think he's mad at her. For what exactly, I'm not sure.

But when Josh writes a wistful piece about Bill Clinton's "Laws of Politics" speech, I think Josh reveals more than he realizes.

The reason we all read TPM, even before this election, was that Josh pointed out the hypocrisy, corruption, lies and spin in Washington. Hence the wildly popular TPM Muckraker.

If Hillary fits that description, Josh has a made it a duty to report on it. He has also made it his duty to report the truth behind the lies and spin, not only in Washington, but in this election as well.

Hillary has run a dirty, hypocrisy filled campaign. That is her own doing. Don't blame Josh Marshall for reporting what all of the media should be reporting - the truth.

To do anything less would be tantamount to repeating the same media mistakes that gave us GWB and his cronies.

Hey, Mike, even Atrios voted for Obama (and he's been assiduously neutral since the beginning of these primaries). Doesn't that tell you something about the perception of the way your candidate is running her campaign? I think Josh has remained remarkably even-handed. However, he is from New York and, as a fellow New Yorker, I can say that if he's anything like me he's watched with chagrin as our Senator has engaged in Rovian-like tactics to tear down another Democratic candidate. What she's doing is NOT good for the party and I have to believe that Josh is disappointed in her and has thus become more critical of her.

Keep up the great work Josh! Perhaps hillary supporters are dismayed because none of the progressive blogs support her. I also find it odd that hillary and her supporters want everyone to be nice and fair toward her, but continually use republican-type attacks against obama. The level of political discourse in the country has become very caustic and I blame HRC for helping to raise its intensity. You may say I am whining, then so be it as I actually want to see all americans get ahead.
The high road is much harder to travel, anyone can wallow around in the mud.

OMG St0p teh Bias@!

It would be shut down for national security reasons.

TPMGate.

I don't know why people are attacking me or my post? I have said that I want to support this site, and obviously I frequent it if I logged an account. What I'm suggesting is that the import of Josh not endorsing when many other bloggers and journalists were (I also recall a discussion on here about whether he should or not) was that he aimed to bring an unbiased Democratic perspective in his blog. That's how I interpreted it. If that's the case, then I think he should stand true to that tenet regardless of his preference.