One last thought (maybe) on the debate:

This episode, as viewed the prism of George, reiterates a couple ideas that have been bugging me for a while.  It's the same feeling I get when I see Karl Rove playing the role of pundit and yukking it up with whatever shill has volunteered to represent the left side of whatever valuable thing is suddenly being made worthless by their discussion.

In a week or so, on his show, George will make a joke about the debate, about his performance, and the public reaction.  James Carville and David Brooks will laugh, maybe exchange high fives.  And thus, this whole thing will be forgotten.  At least by them, and really, that's what matters here.

Because, at the end of the day, the people who are arbitrating our national debate aren't that concerned about it.  Or not in the way we want them to be at least.  They're rich, they've got ratings and readers and dinner parties and tickets in the front row at Yankee games.  They've proudly got "friends on both sides of the aisle." 

It doesn't matter to them who wins the election--either way, they're fine.  They hide behind an invisible cloak of neutrality, and what we all choose to call liberal or conservative bias is actually neither.  It's professional bias.

They're biased toward this whole congenial and sober affair they call political reporting, and we, the viewers, the amateurs, are lucky to have them around.  Otherwise, how would we even know what to think? 

Unfortunately, they're partly right, and that's what makes them all the more dangerous, and what has led us to this point, asking people if the "believe in the flag" on national television.  (Poor woman.  Shame on ABC.  Treating her like a Survivor contestant, unedited and provoked for "better" television.)

Whatever thing was in George that led him to the Clintons, and a liberal cause, has not been sidestepped, but rather, swallowed whole by the beast of television celebrity.  What Updike called a "mask that eats into the face."  And we, the viewers, will write letters and complain but George won't lose one moment of sleep over us.  So long as his bosses are happy, and his co-stars are friendly, and they're all one big professional family, he'll be fine.  It's a one-sided relationship.  We care so they don't have to.

And now...the Sunday Funnies.

I have to admit, I'm coming here less these days.  I still have hours to kill (or procrastinate) in front of the computer, but I find my TPM interest is flailing.

It's not because of perceived or non-existent bias (please let's not argue over that here), but rather, that in trying to keep Hillary in the news (trying to be fair, a noble goal), I feel TPM ends up propagating a lot of crap that is going to come back and hurt progressives in November.

I mean, Obama is probably going to win this thing.  It's like 90 percent, right?  So what good does it do the movement to post headlines declaring him an "elitist"?  To report every thing Hillary says about him as if it is of tremendous consequence, when it is only of tremendous consequence because media like TPM lets it be?

Sure it's the news, but I'm not sure a blog has a responsibility to report everything, or even to be "fair and balanced," do they?  Isn't there a stated agenda at TPM to promote the progressive cause?

I get that even-handed journalism requires "both sides" to be reported, but that's the same excuse Fox News uses in their defense, at least Brit Hume anyway.

So Hillary supporters will say that TPM, and this post here especially, is just Obama robot nonsense, and that's fine.  But I wonder if I'm alone in feeling, gradually, that this is all an exercise in aiding the enemy (right wing attacks, public conservative sentiment and fear of the black man) come November.

Anyway, I'm curious how others feel.  TPM is a great critic of MSM reporting, and it's been a big part of the site's success.  So I think it's fair game to consider TPM's own responsibilities, and I wonder how any of you feel they are or aren't being met.

(This post is biased toward Obama, yes.  But so are the numbers.  So I'm admitting mine in an effort that this won't devolve into arguing about Greg or Eric's perceived biases as well, but more about the mission, if there is one, of this site, and whether there's a benefit--to anything other than site hits--in not endorsing a candidate.)