What does TPM stand for? Talking Points Memo.

I think we need to know what they're saying so we know how to combat. Even if it doesn't get in to TPM, it's still going everywhere else, so we need to know what lies are being spread so we can combat them with truth! (Sometimes this truth is hard to find and requires research. When your friend asks you about xyz, if you hadn't heard that Wolfson "talking point" before, then you might not know whether it was completely true (and if so, to what degree is it relevant), partially true (and in what way not true), or completely fabricated (and where the evidence is that shows it's false).

It's a bit irritating hearing the pointless, idiotic and embarrassing blather of Wolfson and Penn on a daily basis. But at least we know what hilarious bullshit they are going to try to publicly legitimize next.

My question is, since this site is dominated by Clinton talking points does that mean that Clinton is pushing more material on a daily basis, or is it just covered disproportionately?

TPM publishing these is fine, since we'd like to know what the campaigns are pushing. What's unfortunate is that outfits like ABC and CNN seem to live off of them. Just totally unfiltered campaign tp all the time.

It's disturbing when I hear the campaign's talking points repeated as "Clinton thinks..." rather than "Clinton says...", taking blatant spin at face value.

When Clinton was slammed for touting McCain's qualifications over Obama's and "going to the scullery" to try to lower his appeal to voters, an aggressive push was mounted to attribute Clinton's statements to concern that the Party would nominate someone who couldn't be elected in November. Was she motivated by concern for the Party or by personal ambition at the expense of Party interests?

Many of us think the latter, but that's a motivation her campaign would of course never acknowledge. In my opinion, Clinton completely realizes that Obama is likely to be elected if he gets the nomination. Obama supporters think Clinton is trying to "kneecap" Obama so she will get the nomination, because whoever the Democrats nominate is likely to defeat McCain. McCain's numbers will sink like a stone once media attention is focused on his gaffes and his negatives.

I don't read TPM closely enough to make an informed judgment about reporting of Clinton's spin, but her campaign certainly depends on spin being reported as reality in general, at least temporarily putting the Obama campaign off-balance and off-message, especially in the runup to primaries.

Like Sponson, I would appreciate more evaluative language, like "Clinton camp suggests that obama is against Floridians voting. However, Obama has said..." Especially when the Clinton camp is "misstating" something.

Also: I would like to ask a question similar to the one above: Is TPM not in on the Obama camp's morning calls? Do they not shovel it as much as Clinton's camp?? When "Obama says..." headlines appear here, they are often words I have seen other places and are in response to a clinton statement.

Example: Anyone who has been following this for any length of time knows that Fla and Mi will be seated but not in time for it to matter to the outcome of the race. Anyone who matters has said this. When this site merely passes on the Clinton's latest statement/position on Fla/Mi in HUGE hysterical headlines, it helps them maintain the sense of "uncertainty" that Allen et al., wrote keeps them "in the race." So perhaps when the Clinton campaign issues a HUGE statement about Fla/MI, TPM might do what I have increasingly noticed CNN and MSNBC talking heads are doing:i.e., they take note of the gap between the Clinton pronouncements and what has already transpired; i.e.,court cases have been brought and dismissed; state legislatures have nixed revotes; DNC folk who matter have said that election results from Fla/Mi will NOT be allowed to impact the primary race; and Obama, Dean, Roosevelt and others have said that Fla/Mi should and will be seated...

Or perhaps (one is left to wonder)TPM would like to keep them in the race.

It's a little bit irritating that Greg posts Obama points in quotes, and Clinton points at face value. We know there's a bias there (I don't think Josh has any, however... and to his credit).

Greg Sargent's been doing this for MONTHS. It's beyond tiresome how he plays Clintons' "insider"

Beyond time for him to go

ERIC FOR EDITOR

As I mentioned in my post, I think it's fair to inquire about editorial content and editorial intent.

The Clintons have always generated more attention. They are a world curiosity.

But how much attention should we give them?

It seems as if there is a tpm printing press attached to Howard Wolfson's mouth.

When you add up the spin of Howard Wolfson, Mark Penn, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, Maggie Williams, Lanny Davis, James Carville, Governor Rendell, and "Clinton insiders", they seem to have eminent domain of the TPM site.

This is "talking points memo",not "press releases you can xerox".

Sometimes it's what they're not saying that's more newsworthy than what they are saying.

I'm just asking for an assessment of balance here.

Yes, because where else would Ben Smith at Politico get his information? Ben will quote TPM and say the story is getting a lot of play, then TPM will quote Ben saying the story is getting a lot play, based on the story Ben quoted at TPM. Then Ben quotes TPM on the quote of the quote of the quote. And everybody is happy.

And a stupid, spin-rich, steno job from the Clintons suddenly has "faux-legs." Then the MSM, who are hardly doing their jobs reporting, pick up the "big story from TPM and Politico" and off it goes.

Tail chases dog.