They should play the quote completely for context. It was still a political mistake though. I go crazy when Obama gives these Clintons an inch and with the media they take a mile.

I can't claim this to be an original comment/thought, but:

I think part of the blog/on-line coverage of this campaign has been problematic (including the Election Central page here) because it is a campaign of some historical importance: i.e., a shift in power in DC AND (more importantly), and upending of the Clintons' ideological dominance over the Democratic Party.

So: Since this is a truly an election for "change," I would suggest that one of the factors driving coverage is what I will call the "Watergate ambition." I would suggest that bloggers/websites/"journalists" (I use this term in its most broad sense) would like to be the go-to "expert" on this election cycle, and one way to do this is to "break" a story - even if you have to make the story before "breaking" it.

Therefore you see incredibly over-the-top, handwringing stuff over the most ordinary back-and-forth that occurs in political campaigns: e.g., he said-and then she said... and OH MY GOD!!

It's unfortunate, especially since TPM's wonderful coverage/breaking of the attorneys general scandal was the kind of journalism which brought me to this site. But it was kind of funny to see Politico's guy just about have a fit as he proclaimed that Obama's remarks were going to be a PROBLEM!!! in the general election, with no, zilch, zero evidence of this other than his assertion that it would be so.

That he - and others-would repeat Clinton's argument to the superdelegates is disgraceful, but I think,frankly, that everyone is looking to get paid on this one (election).

Too bad.

I agree with you. I was a reader of Politico for a while but they are so biased that I stopped. Ben Smith thinks the sun rises and sets in the crack of HRC's behind..so don't look to him for any kind of fair or balanced reporting.

You are correct -- The Politico seems to be a very right-leaning "gotcha" outfit, especially the sleazy GOP-tool Ben Smith. They scour the web and news for something that they can dress up as "news", give an out of context headline, and throw out as redmeat for lazy MSM news outfits, who replay and repeat it.

I note also that ofcourse McCain gets a total pass all the time. He was introduced by some bigot the other day who refered to Obama as "Tiger Woods", and McCain sat there in silence and then gave him a big hug. This out-and-out racist rabble-rousing is apparently not a big enough gaffe.

Politico = GOP funded plant dressed up as "inside Washington"

"This was no gaffe. This was no stumble. This was certainly not a swipe. Politico wants nothing more than to extend this race so that they can generate more clicks and thus more ad revenue."

Bingo. Politico is hardly the only media outlet that does this. Much in the same way they keep reporting Bush's remarks on Iraq, its not like anyone believes him... but I guess people still tune in.

A few weeks ago Dana Perrino was on Jon Stewart and asked her why no one asks about Iraq. I don't remember what she said but I know why - No One Believes the White House Anymore When It Comes To Iraq - so why bother asking?

Hillary has the media to thank for the perception that her campaign continues to remain viable.

I don't think it is just ads. If so, why not play gotcha with McCain?

No, the Politico is obviously rightwing. Who founded it, where did it's funding come from, who runs it?

For a politico newspaper to just appear and become mainstream so quicly speaks of big backers and lots of cash.