« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Are you as fed up with TPM as I?
How nice! On the TPM homepage, the lead article concerns itself whether the media was "fair" to Hillary or not.
And buried on the front page, and not even an ElectionCentral post as I write this, is the fact that Al Gore is endorsing Obama.
I have, for a long time, pointed out that TPM didn't really show much bias either for or against a candidate. However, now that Hillary is gone, apparently TPM didn't get the memo. Story after story about her -- and now we finally have come to a meta-story about her.
Which makes this a meta-meta-post, I suppose.
Oh, I know it must be fun to opine on a subject where anyone can sound like an expert with little real worry about being exposed since there is no "definitive" answer.
Unfortunately, there has been a study by Pew/Harvard which, at very least, is more respectable than chatting over Starbucks lattes or Dunkin' Donuts coffee.
Bummer that TPM doesn't seem to mention this study, isn't it?
Or to pull an old Hillary metaphor: the TPM story on the NY Times story looks almost like a Xerox of a Xerox.
It's time for TPM to move with the times: the present election is about Obama and McCain.
Unless you want to run a movie review of the Bush v. Gore court case <em>Recount</em> currently on HBO. It's a pretty good movie and you can even tie it into Hillary's "every vote must count" mantra.
Comments (178)
I could certainly do without any further HRC campaign postmortem. I'll certainly be interested in continuing to read about her in the context of her role in Obama's campaign, and anything else of interest that she becomes involved in. Don't need to relive the primaries any more, though.
June 16, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since 1965 the federal government has provided more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in 86 million college loans to 29 million students, and more than $14 billion in work-study awards to 6 million students. Today nearly 60 percent of full-time undergraduate students receive federal financial aid under Great Society programs and their progeny.
When these programs were enacted, only 41 percent of Americans had completed high school; only 8 percent held college degrees. This past year, more than 81 percent had finished high school and 24 percent had completed college.
Head Start, which has served more than 16 million preschoolers in just about every city and county in the nation and today serves 800,000 children a year, is as American as motherhood and apple pie. Like so many successes, this preschool program has a thousand parents. But how many people remember the battles over Head Start? Conservatives opposed such early childhood education as an attempt by government to interfere with parental control of their children. In the '60s those were code words to conjure up images of Soviet Russia wrenching children from their homes to convert them to atheistic communism. But Lyndon Johnson knew that the rich had kindergartens and nursery schools; and he asked, why not the same benefits for the poor?
In the entire treasury of Great Society measures, the jewel Lyndon Johnson believed would have the greatest value was the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That law opened the way for black Americans to strengthen their voice at every level of government. In 1964 there were 79 black elected officials in the South and 300 in the entire nation. By 1998, there were some 9,000 elected black officials across the nation, including 6,000 in the South. In 1965 there were five black members of the House; today there are 39.
Great Society contributions to racial equality were not only civic and political. In 1960, black life expectancy was 63.6 years, not even long enough to benefit from the Social Security taxes that black citizens paid during their working lives. By 1997, black life expectancy was 71.2 years, thanks almost entirely to Medicaid, community health centers, job training, food stamps, and other Great Society programs. In 1960, the infant mortality rate for blacks was 44.3 for each 1,000 live births; in 1997, that rate had plummeted by two-thirds, to 14.7. In 1960, only 20 percent of blacks completed high school and only 3 percent finished college; in 1997, 75 percent completed high school and more than 13 percent earned college degrees.
June 17, 2008 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure what your point is, but you are quoting selective "accomplishments" from the last 40 years and leaving out all the darker aspects of life in America. Here's a blog about graduation rates that updates your 11 year old stats. Why not talk about poverty and homelessness and working poor and incarceration rates? Your rah, rah America stuff is decidedly one-sided.
June 17, 2008 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, aside from the phony patriotrix surrounding our Mideast Imperium, we get very little authentic flag-waving these days. The mainstream media presents us with an America that:
- Was backward and horrendously oppressive until we smelled the flowers in the 1960s - however ephemeral the day-glo turned out to be.
- Is cursed apparently forever with racism - which today is kind of an amorphous, blobby voodoo exclusively inflicting all white people, and maintaining its scabrous status quo by virtually magical/witchy means. (A good explanation for all phantasms ill-defined.)
- Must continually endure "awareness raising" of thoroughly acknowleged circumstances, especially by those without cultural or intellectual background in their subjects. Example: Endless lessons in democracy and economics by recently arrived immigrants from subsistence-level tyrannies.
- Must accept without a peep every half-baked dogma or trendy group-think meme - which universally end up smashed on the hard tarmac of reality - or risk status as social pariah.
At least in the long-ago flag-waving days - deeply flawed but genuine - we knew who we really were, and weren't troubled by hypocritical delusions of perfection.
June 17, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
JEM,
Is that a picture of you??
What a geek!
June 17, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
God, how I hate forgetting that formatting is different between blogs and comments!
June 16, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's kinda sad, because we all like Greg and all. But, we have to kind of push him to actually address issues that are pertinent to the election. Please? Pretty please?
June 16, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish someone slapped the TPM EC people and explained to them, very slowly and very clearly, that the primary is over and Hillary lost. It's not about her anymore.
June 16, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about a time out? Slapping seems a little harsh, doesn't it?
June 17, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gregg's girlfriend is a Hillary diehard, and he's protecting his domestic tranquility?
June 17, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
June 16, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me three!
June 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Utterly and completely fed up.
Unfortunately, I'm finding myself at other sites as a result. TPM just does not give good coverage.
June 17, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am fed up with Greg Sargent posts. He selectively chooses non-issues and then promotes them as the big story of the day.
It woudl be Nice if Josh practiced a little oversight on his staff. Josh does a great job in creating a perspective and selecting which issues mater. Greg appears totally lost in his own world and refuses to let go of the fact that Hillary is no longer in the race.
June 17, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, not at all.
June 16, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Add me to the list. I can barely bring myself to comment anymore. Prior to today I don't know when the last time I weighed in on anything here was. Between the trolls and the fact that the lead authors seem insistent on talking about Hillary even when she's out of the race. Dude.
June 17, 2008 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do find myself spending muchk more time at HuffPo these days.
June 17, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too. TPM was not Fair and Balanced during the primary season. Most commenters still aren't.
June 16, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Hillary's just more interesting?
June 16, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only to those interested in self-destructive martyr complexes.
June 16, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Werner Herzog should make a movie about her
June 16, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
She could star in a remake of Fitzcarraldo, or Aguirre part II.
June 17, 2008 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You must be gay.
June 17, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I appreciated Greg's analysis. There are still a lot of bloggers here arguing about the primaries. And there's still a great need for clarity on the points being argued.
That said, I do hope to see the post mortem stuff die down and more focus being placed on the general election. It's time to get past campaigning for the primary candidates. We're getting antsy aren't we? The general election is already an urgent matter.
June 16, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, LauraJordan, but it is facts that should be argued... and what we have here are impressions.
The Pew/Harvard study, for example:
http://journalism.org/node/11439
shows that Hillary drove the media narrative the week that Obama won the Dem slot.
How is this unfair for Hillary?
June 16, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, thanks for the link, CT. Fascinating!
June 16, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Pew study is so flawed that it is impossible to take seriously. It counted up all the statements made about candidate X and then rated them "favorable/unfavorable" and didn't differentiate between who was making the statements and whether the statements were true or not. Just thought a clear thinker would want to know that.
June 16, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may decide it is flawed... however, Pew studies are considered the gold standard by the academic communities and, regardless, I would trust these people, who after all, are professional researchers in these areas and present data, over the random "gut impressions" we find on the typical TPM pages.
June 16, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand why you see this methodology as being flawed. It's a solid content analysis. They used an objective approach to compare the media's coverage of all of the candidates. Same approach for each candidate makes for a standard comparison.
What Greg did was subjective.
June 16, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is flawed because it conflicts with the "Hillary Truth".
June 16, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's why it's flawed. Of the themes that came up for Clinton, two are positive statements: Good Politician and Ready to lead day one, and the other 3 "Positive" comments are REBUTING some negative comment - Personally unlikable, Lack core belief and represents politics of the past. While Obama has 3 "Positive" themes: Represents Hope and change, Is honest, Has Charisma. and 2 are REBUTING a negative comment: Too inexperienced, Appeal is narrow.
It would seem to me, taken to extremes, that if one candidate had only positive statements: Great Leader, Honest, Trustworthy, Clean, Patriotic, where the other candidate had only "Positive" rebuttal comments ( in the study these were coded as positive ) i.e. We REBUT that they are: Dishonest, Bad Leader, Not Trustworthy, Dirty, and Unpatriotic. Under the Pew study the both candidates would show equal amount of positive statements.
Seems like rebuttal comments should be given a different weight since they are trying to counteract a negative as opposed to reinforce a positive.
Also the types of issues should be quantified some how - to say someone is personally unlikable or lacks core beliefs ( both PERSONAL attacks ) is more NEGATIVE than saying their appeal is narrow. Taken to extremes if saying someone was a murder and another a tax evader, both are negative comments but carry much different weight. These types of differences were not quantified in the study. Just identified as a negative statement.
I could go on and on , as I've downloaded the data and reviewed it extensively - but suffice it to say it is a flawed study. And unfortunately widely referenced in the media. So what eles is new?
June 17, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for taking that on, TD. First, your observation that Pew looks at the media coverage in terms of Declarative Statements and Rebuttals of those statements is a good one. In their analysis, they created a dichotomy, positive coverage vs. negative. If the storyline was countering a negative message about a candidate, they counted that as positive media coverage. I suppose that you could argue that by bringing attention to the negative narrative, it may have negative impact on the candidate, so perhaps it should be weighted differently. In any case, breaking it down that way doesn't change the findings in terms of positive coverage of the candidates. It does change the interpretation when you look at negative coverage, as the negative stories on Hillary were more focused on
the declarative negative statements about her than on rebuttals of the positive statements about her. Looking at it this way would change the interpretation of the negative coverage of OBAMA, so that you would say that the coverage of the rebuttals of his positive coverage were less damaging to him than the ongoing coverage of the declarative negative statements about Hillary. But, I would point out here, that this is not a flaw in the study. They collect the data and present it in a manner that allows you to interpret it this way, if you believe that's a factor. But, that's a subjective interpretation.
Your second point is also subjective. That the content of the statements themselves are more damaging for one candidate than for the other is in the eyes of the candidates' supporters. It's certainly not a flaw of the study. The study examined the narrative that it found in various media sources and objectively ranked it. They then counted up how many of these messages were floated out there. You can argue that the "hate" that people harbor for Hillary is more intense than the "hate" that they harbor for Obama. Or that sexism is a worse ism than racism. But, all of that is subjective and not the point of this study. And it doesn't suggest that the study is flawed.
June 17, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more little observation. When looking at the fact that Hillary's negative media coverage is skewed towards the declarative statements, rather than rebuttal of positive statements, you can also interpret that as her critics being unwilling to assail her on her strengths: they granted that she is "prepared to lead" and that she is a "skilled politician." They chose to criticize her on the grounds that she had an unlikeable personality, that she represented the status quo, and lacked core beliefs - all areas that they considered her weaknesses.
June 17, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice comments, Carol. You have me rethinking my position on some of those beltwayers! ;-)
June 17, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're not all bad. It's just the traffic and humidity that makes us seem that way sometimes...
June 17, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have a Pew/Harvard study, I have my own observation that the MSM followed the narrative as set by the Clinton campaign: Indiana counted, North Carolina didn't. Kentucky was the bell-weatheriest state evah; Oregon didn't matter. West Virginia was the true measure of a Democrat's popularity, etc.
Obama did consistently better, from Ohio to PA to IN, in all of those groups he's supposedly so weak with (white working class, older white woman, HS diplomas, etc), you'd never know that from the campaign reporting.
Finally, for overall media coverage: Yes, Chris Matthews is a sexist pig, a psychological trainwreck on display for the whole world. Yes, Keith Olbermann got a litte hysterical in his dislike of her (for her statements and strategy, not her genitalia). Yes, the Washington Post did run an incredibly stupid article about her cleavage. About nine months ago. One article. Written by a woman. Yes, a random (and female) McCain supporter and one notoriously crass and obnoxious GOP operative called her a bitch. Neither is evidence of widespread media sexism.
As for TPM, I noticed the other day the headline about Obama's lead narrowing. According to Gallup which, for whatever reason, and again according to my recollection, always undercounted Obama's support, no mention of Rasmussen which showed his lead holding.
June 17, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you nailed it, Blue.
June 17, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh man! If I could rate individual statements, this one would get a 5!
I'm going to quote you.
June 17, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
June 17, 2008 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm getting scared, actually.
Here we have the first black American presidential candidate in history, and TPM runs a lead story undermining his victory. Okay; they have a right to do this, though it makes my guts churn.
However, a major story today is that McCain is openly courting women and those who feel this election was "unfair."
TPM has earned great respect. When it runs a piece as unbalanced as this, people will still tend to listen and give it credence (even when its author admits it is unbalanced).
This merely helps McCain.
Oy! TPM, please stop this now.
The Democrats will win in November, but this piece makes their job that much harder. Way to go!
June 16, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
THANK YOU! Quoted so you all will read it again.
June 17, 2008 6:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'd just checked my Inbox, saw the email announcement come in from Al Gore, and immediately popped over to TPM for the lowdown, only to find it's on the down low.
Fair enough. Gore had his chance to endorse, but waited too long. We should all be upset that he waited until this moment, until the very moment his endorsement might distract from TPM's highly-anticipated Hillary-media-coverage postmortem.
And whatever pro-Hillary bias you Obamaniacs might try to read into TPM's postmortem, just remember it's nothin' compared to the evil genius that determined the timing of the Gore announcement.
Either that, or the bean-counters at TPM happened to check out Alexa's site ratings for June, and got word to the editors about the only surge that matters for the new media mavens:
http://www.alexa.com
Following the link is endless hours of fun. Plug in your favorite and most-hated websites to see how they compare. Spoiler alert: resentment and rumors = page hits.
Rec'd.
With apologies for responding like a prick on some random thread somewhere.
June 16, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm...and in our analysis over the weekend of the tributes to Tim Russert and how the media has failed us and the talk of the commercialization of the MSM and how great it is to have the net as an alternative...could it be that the persistence of TPM in feeding us tripe is intentional?
June 16, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you referring to JS? I was grooving on it.
June 16, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, a reply I posted to clearthinker somewhere that was meant to be funny, but came out sounding totally rude. Nobody except myself probably even noticed, but it bugged me. OK, done apologizing, carry on.
June 16, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm... I don't remember anything your wrote that seemed obnoxious. Either way, we are cool, Chino! And thanks for the eyeballs.
Figuratively speaking, of course.
June 16, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've said this before and I'll say it again: Alexa is really a completely useless measure of our stats. It's not even consistently off in a way that would allow you to see trends.
June 16, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! I love it when Andrew pops up like that. Reminds us that he is watching... :)
June 16, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too.
I've been trying to figure out if there's a secret code word that summons him.
June 16, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice!
June 16, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Out of curiosity, Andrew, what tools do you use? (Sure, I can OT on my own thread... ;-))
June 16, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
We use google analytics, which actually tracks each individual visit to the site, and addition to some other tools. Alexa is a based on people who've installed the alexa toolbar on their browswers. it's not a good measure.
June 17, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Josh. Google is what I use as well... although I'm always a bit suspicious about their conflict of interest (both tracking and also being in the ad business).
June 17, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't pay no mind to those meanies downthread, Alexa. I don't care if your math's no good, I like you 'cuz you're fun and pretty.
June 17, 2008 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gore did not wait too long. When one considers all of the left over acrimony btw him and the Clintons - and the fact that his Climate Change agenda and P-Prize only rile up certain Repubs which may have driven some more oppo-turn-out-effort earlier on - t'was strategically meant to avoid distorting Obama's narrative.
If he'd endorsed during the primary - it would've dredged up 2 weeks of stories about: did Hil stomp on VP territory during Bill's reign; Gore's choice to not use Bill more prominently during his campaign (turns out he was right); Billary's lackluster effort for him; and for all those potential primary-crossover Obamicans and Indies leftover ire toward any former Clinton admin official.
Obama's camp & Gore knew that an early endorsement would have diverted too much attn to the past away from Obama's message.
June 17, 2008 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary who?
June 16, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
....who?
June 16, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
What?
June 16, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're still in the wind-down of primary season. The GE is still checking tire gauges presently, but once the engines start revving you'll be waxing philosophical about the good ol' days when it was nothing but tit-for-tat Obama vs. Hillary.
June 16, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, for anyone interested, here is the direct link to the Pew Harvard study:
http://journalism.org/node/11266
I would know the following quote:
So much for sexism...
June 16, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh...that's, I would note the following quote...
June 16, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree. On June 3rd, when Obama clinched the needed number of delegates, not a single post on the Election Central homepage mentioned this. They had the speeches, but they didn't have a single story highlighting the historic event. I wrote an extremely scathing note concerning this, but thought better of posting it.
But honestly, you make such a good point, clearthinker, that I'm tempted to just post it as an afterthought.
June 16, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
ClearThinker, I was bothered by the Drudge connection and how Drudge drove the narrative.
June 16, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I commented above, you may want to look at
http://journalism.org/node/11439
My bottom line: if we want to discuss this meta-issue, in times of floods, skyrocketing energy costs, and a general election, at least let's use facts and not impressions.
The very fact that this blog is on a hot list for recommendations while this one
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/saudis-pumping-more-after-pump.php
pointing out a more important issue is indicative of something.
Besides more proof of articleman's rules, I mean.
June 16, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Drudge is on the same email list as Josh & Greg. (thought this article does not list Greg, others do.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/sidney-blumenthal-uses-fo_b_99695.html
June 16, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
(though)
June 16, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good to see I'm not the only one... ;-)
June 16, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it was reported in the echo chamber that is the MSM, that Hillary's people reached out directly (that is more "inside" and "higher up" than Blumenthal) to Drudge to smooth over the ruffled feathers from Monica-gate.
June 16, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Who cares what Monica's boyfriend's wife is up to? Maybe she can land a gig at Fox w/Lanny Davis.
June 16, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
www.dailykos.com may be more to the liberal progressives likings these days. There, if a diary is stupid, it falls off the charts. :) I used to come here during the primaries, but now I'm sticking to dailykos and huffingtonpost
June 16, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's team and themes drew in what they drew in. How come they were not more skilled at engaging the press? How come they did not anticipate these issues (of sexism in the press) and work with it more effectively? There is always a resolution, a creative new angle, and perhaps the Clinton team was too volatile and adverse (her choice) to creatively find those solutions together.
There is also always someone to say that the game was not fair. As a woman and a feminist, I may not like what the press wrote or tones of discussing Hillary Clinton, but I do think that this is part of the game, and that it was her responsibility to find a way to play within the handicaps of our culture. That is what I see Obama has been facing and doing with regard to racism - meeting it head on with deeper conversations and novel solutions.
So, I agree, I was disappointed to see TPM displaying this highly arguable issue/opinion here, and contributing to the "Hillary was a victim" feeling in the nation. To me, there is nothing more 'sexist' than that statement. The opportunity to wince at the various idiotic gestures of the media are better placed in a Jon Stewart show - here in this forum, they simplify the issues down to look like - 'Hillary was a victim of sexism'. (And, by extension, Obama may not have won fairly.)
She was an equal player, on an equal playing ground, with different handicaps, and different advantages, and the press reactions, the vote tallies, and the choices made by superdelegates are just some of her results, reflecting the ways that she handled her game.
June 16, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree.
I no longer come to TPM to catch up on the election news. TPM is NOT among the priamry sites for Election news or analysis- not anymore, anyways.
Frankly, much of the news on TPM is delayed and recycled. These guys have no strings or network to give an inside view of the Obama camp, while they apparently have a front seat ticket to the Clinton camp. That's the real problem.
Further, it doesn't seem as if TPM has resources or reach to expose the dificiencies of McCain and Co.
I come here primarily for the crowd. It's one of the very few places I get a sense of small cyber community. I don't feel like a stranger or being among strangers and don't have to introduce myself every time I login.
I have to say though Josh over the last few years has done an excellent job keeping the focus on the Bush administration scandals.
June 16, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cosign. I come here over and over and there's nothing by way of election news, nothing worthwhile at least. TPM sucks now. I mainly come to see the user blogs and tpmmuckraker. Greg Sargent sucks. Rehashes of rehashes about Hillary? Damn.
I've moved from TPM to the political rss feeds from Huffpo and Sullivan. KOS is pretty good but I can't keep up with the traffic.
Add this present bullshit with lame content(muckraking aside) to the retarded site revamp and you have one steaming pile of fecal matter. This site is so horrible I dont even bother going to TPMCafe to read the book club posts anymore. I'm pretty disappointed. But they obviously dont give a shit if we're disappointed.
June 16, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
personally i am more interested in reading about hilliary. if you want all obama all day go to his website. this is "TPM" not "OPM".
June 16, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Michelle,
My sense is that people don't want an "Obama Centered" site. I think people may be upset that Election Central seems slanted towards Clinton.
I want us to win in November; that means I think TPM needs to focus on sound objective reporting that helps us to understand the current players -- Obama and McCain -- and perhaps that exposes issues in both (and most especially the latter) we should know about.
If Hillary were the nominee, then Obama supporters would be bummed, but I think they would be 100% behind fair and positive reportage on Clinton, focused on Clinton, as she would be our next president. Now they just want fair, focused coverage on our current nominee and future president.
All the best,
Laura
June 16, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michelle,
www.HillaryClinton.com and www.Hillaryis44.com are just clicks away.
Please note I didn't say I wanted to read about Obama -- but I do want to focus on the general election. Which no long has Hillary as an important component of it.
June 16, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow, it's all in the eyes of the beholder I guess. My perception has been that TPM has been wildly unbalanced in support of Obama. Certainly they never put up a headline as biased as the one they used for the RFK quote on any story about him.
June 16, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Obama bias is why the Election Central ignored Obama clinching the delegates needed for the nomination. No headline saying Obama had won as far as I can remember.
June 16, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, TPM has been so biased in favor of Obama by catapulting every conference call form the Clinton in multiple posts a day. How devious of them to help Obama by posting all of the Clinton talking points on a daily basis.
Your perception does not appear to have much in common with reality.
June 16, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM and Josh Marshall have a very middle of the road point of view. Not exactly D.C. Beltway or DLC but very accepting of the status quo regarding the Democratic Party. There is a battle going on for control of the party. Hardcore progressives are taking over at the grassroots level precinct by precinct. Moderates are being squeezed out. The wonks at TPM are more interested in following daily tracking polls than they are advancing progressive principles.
June 16, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, so much for the Dems building a new national consensus.
June 16, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
or winning.
June 16, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm moderately progressive....will you squeeze me too?
June 17, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
FYI, they posted a piece on the Gore endorsement 5 mins. after you posted this.
June 16, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes... and I cam to TPM after hearing about Gore endorsing Obama. Only to find the Hillary meta-piece. In other words, by the time the news trickled to me, a lowly civilian -- it still hadn't been posted here.
June 16, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, usually ClearThinker looks like he's deep in thought. But, today he looks kinda depressed. :(
June 16, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Knowing you are out there readin' my stuff, Carol, makes it all better though...
I'm mostly depressed about the energy situation. You will note that receives scant attention from either candidate.
June 16, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are the chances that maybe we could get TPM-EC to do a weekly policy focussed blog? Comparing the two campaigns on a key policy issue? Like...oh, I don't know...energy policies?
And then, we could critique them? Both of them? Because, even if we tend to support Obama around here, his policies may not be entirely satisfactory, from a progressive perspective, and we might want to kick that around a bit, yes?
June 16, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like your idea a lot -- as well as comment from mphillip who wants to see a discussion on how the newly registered voter program is going along.
I personally don't care for labels like "progressive" because that only tends to isolate people from taking a good look at something. More importantly, what is considered "progressive" today, may have been more run of the mill 30 years ago.
One of my biggest issues with both Obama and McCain is that neither has addressed what *will be* the defining issue of the next president: the drying up of cheap energy. The issue affects us on so many different levels that it boggles the mind -- and things like who sits on the SCOTUS or fair and equitable healthcare programs will pale in significance.
I may just have to blog on that topic -- pity that I know it won't get the same reaction as this particular blog, but you have to fight the good fight, I suppose.
June 16, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS as a case and point, Carol, note the reaction to this blog of mine:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/realism-and-levro-policy.php
Now this particular blog even made the coveted "Don't Miss" blog on TPMCafe and still it had a paltry readership. Yet the ideas contained therein are far more important than this discussion.
Score yet another one for articleman's rules!
June 16, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
My God, one comment. But, that made me realize that I always talk about how we need to be scrutinizing the candidates' economic and energy policies, but yeah - let's be willing to talk real seriously about national security and foreign policy. You know, it gets so quiet here on the weekends and we have the same old tired threads that stay up there and get so stale, why not have a good policy thread that we can bat around?
I like the idea of having it right there on the TPM-EC page, rather than in the Reader's Blogs, so that everyone will be more likely to jump in (it's kind of right there at the front door). And it can also encourage Greg and Eric to start getting a little more policy-focussed and less fixated on the horse-race aspects.
June 17, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's like