I've been an occasional TPM reader for years, and a daily reader since last fall. But I still can't figure out what TPM Cafe is supposed to be. Could somebody with more history with this forum explain things to me?

TPM Cafe appears to be a group blog written by TPM readers, not unlike DailyKos. But if you click on "TPM Cafe" and scroll down the posts on the left, there are posts written by the same writers all the time. Is TPM trying to do something like Huffington Post, with "bigwigs" getting the front page treatment ... but instead of reader comments TPM calls their reader's comments "blog posts"?

At this moment, there's a post at top by Jim Grossfield on labor laws, followed by a post by David Cay Johnston on corporate welfare, followed by another post by Jim Grossfield, followed by a post by M. J. Rosenberg, followed by a post about unions by Nathan Newman, followed by a "TPMCafe Book Club" post by Jared Bernstein, fofllowed by a post on the West Bank by Daniel Levy, followed by posts by David Sirota, Lisa Brown, Nathan Newman (again), Jonathan Taplin, Robert Greenwald, Amitai Etzioni, Art Brodsky, Reed Hundt, and Nathan Newman (again). None of these posts show up on the "TPM Most Recommended" list, which leads me to think either that the bigwig posts aren't well read or recommended, or that only reader posts are eligible for the Most Recommended list.

I have written to the editors of TPM with these questions a few weeks ago, but alas no personal response. Anyone?

I don't have a particular beef with Howard Fineman. At least I didn't, until today. But a sentence in his Newsweek op-ed "Gaffe Alert!" just makes my skin crawl.

His piece opens with a few lines detailing what a wonderful week it was shaping out to be for John McCain: a "nicely staged" campaign event in Denver, a "tightly focused message" on the economy, the fresh energy of a "re-launched campaign", and a renewed McCain "back in the game". Then, oops! Phil Gramm makes a gaffe.

Okay... Big Bad Gramm put his foot in his mouth. Asinine. He should keep his mouth shut. Fine.

Fortunately, Fineman says, John McCain is above all that, untouchable even in a moment of distress. Fineman writes:

Senator McCain, cringing, immediately distanced himself from Gramm and his comments.

There's just one little problem with this sentence. It's a bald face lie. As has been widely reported on the Web, the McCain campaign initially backed up it's guy Gramm. The Huffington Post writes:

But in an initial statement published by Politico and then, seemingly, removed from its site, a McCain campaign aide actually stood by Gramm's remarks, saying the interview as a whole was merely meant as a preview of the Senator's economic agenda.

"Mr. Gramm was simply saying that we are laying out the economic plan this week," the piece quoted a "McCain official" as saying. "The plan is comprehensive, providing immediate near-term relief for Americans hurting today as well as longer-term solutions to get our economy back on track, secure our energy future and deliver jobs, prosperity and opportunity for the next generation. We're laying out that plan this week with an emphasis on the critical importance of job creation, and it's been a great success so far."

What's more, this isn't the first time McCain or his surrogates have said that the nation's economic woes are "psychological". Barack Obama, citing McCain's claim that his gas tax holiday would have mainly "psychological" benefits, even said we don't need another Dr. Phil.

But to Fineman, McCain is far too noble to have such asinine sentiments about the economy. Fineman knows McCain's true motives, and since they must be pure, surely McCain must be imagined as having "cringed" upon hearing his advisor's gaffe. I don't suppose anyone actually saw John McCain cringe. Not necessary! Fineman knows how McCain would certainly have responded.

And even if McCain's campaign flip-flopped on whether or not to stand by Phil Gramm, surely McCain himself is such a fast gunning, straight talking maverick that he should be imagined as responding "immediately" to such goofs. It all depends on the meaning of "immediately". As "immediately: reluctantly, after backtracking, changing your mind, being cornered into covering your ass by throwing your own Economic Oracle under the bus".  

So Howard Fineman, why are you dissembling about something so incontrovertible and documented as McCain's response to Gramm?