Media Bias Against Clinton? No Kidding

By Big Tent Democrat

File this NYTimes article under Duh. But there are two especially disturbing parts in the article. First the NYTimes publishes a falsehood:

[T]he Clinton campaign . . . only a few weeks ago released a letter signed by Mrs. Clinton calling on MSNBC to fire a reporter who had made an off-color reference to her daughter, Chelsea . . .

That is blatantly false. No such letter exists except in the mind of biased observers. And among the Media whining that they are too fair, is this statement that even if they were not, it is the Clinton campaign's fault":

“Part of it is her campaign’s fault,” Andrea Mitchell, the longtime NBC political correspondent, said backstage at the MSNBC debate in Cleveland in Tuesday. “They started with this notion of inevitability. And they were very arrogant.”

Excuse me, Mrs. Greenspan, there is NO excuse for Media bias ever. Your duty is to your readers. Not to your need to be treated with fawning love. What a reprehensible statement from Andrea Mitchell.

< Punitive Damages | Heck Of A Way To Choose A Nominee >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    mitchell forgot to mention (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by Turkana on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:05:39 AM EST
    that the village still hasn't forgiven hillary for blowing off sally quinn's party. she also might recall the media not liking al gore, because he just wasn't as warm and fuzzy as bush. it's nice that they always remain so professional.

    I think they hated Gore (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by BernieO on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:32:42 AM EST
    because he was not as manly as Bush. They really have a problem with any guy who is not macho or at least pretends to be. Look at who they usually go for - McCain the war hero with his stories about his old stripper girlfriends, Guiliani, Thompson, rancher Reagan and Shrub. Only Obama breaks that mold, but he is cool. Also Maureen Dowd as already started on the his more feminine style so cool may not be enough.
    Even though Kerry was a genuine war hero, he was seen as an effete elitist who was "too French". Gore was too nerdy. Clinton felt your pain, a very girlie thing to do. In fact the Democratic party is considered the "mommy party" which does not look good to media guys who are insecure in their own masculinity and the girls who are trying to fit into their club. It is all very high school.

    and the idea that gore (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Turkana on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:05:52 AM EST
    isn't as "manly" as bush is laughable. in what ways is bush "manly?" he's a "cowboy" who doesn't even ride a horse!

    They don't like smart people, because THEY (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:17:41 AM EST
    remind them of the kids in school who knew the answers and made better grades than them.  It is the media -- people like Andrea Mitchell who are arrogant!  They have their little clique and access to power --being able to control who gets to be King or Queen of the Senior Prom and they don't like being challenged on that.

    Obama's cool (3.00 / 1) (#90)
    by nemo52 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:58:02 AM EST
    is very much that of the old Rat Pack.

    MediaMatters: Summary of Candidate Coverage (none / 0) (#107)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:07:21 PM EST
    Eric Boehlert (MediaMatters) has a new editorial: "The Press Will Torment Obama too."

    See also Boehlert's compilation of the ongoing, press bashing of Clinton: "Hillary, the Debate and the Media Folly".

    See also the October, 2007 Vanity Fair article with the mainstream press now admitting that, in 2000, they mercilessly bashed Gore: "Going after Gore".

    *The Gore article is particularly instructive because it is a case-study as to how the press, the Stenographic Arm of the Republican Party, is well on their way to determining the outcome of the 20008 General Election, in precisely the same way they did in 2000.


    Dana Milbank spells it out for us... (none / 0) (#111)
    by piniella on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:23:26 AM EST
    KURTZ: I had the impression it was a camp reunion when I was out there in Iowa. And it is great, the retail campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire. It is fun to cover and it is real, but it's -- when the votes are counted and we decide who did well -- for example, Hillary Clinton, let's say she doesn't win Iowa. Let's say she gets edged out by 1,000 votes. Is the press going to savage her as a loser?
    MILBANK: The press will savage her no matter what, pretty much.
    STRONGKURTZ: --the press with Hillary Clinton, it's a poisonous relationship. And I visited the various campaigns out there. It's a mutual sort of disregard. And they really have their knives out for her, there's no question about it out there. So --


    MILBANK: It's more that they dislike Hillary Clinton. There is a long history there, her antagonism towards the press. It's returned in spades. And it is a venomous relationship that I see out there.


    So name a presdential candidate (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:14:13 AM EST
    running today who isn't either arrogant or blow-your-hair-back arrogant.

    They're making excuses for their bad behavior using the classical blame the victim strategy.

    And despite everything Bush has messed up... (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by diplomatic on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:33:18 AM EST
    they have never EVEN COME CLOSE to this sort of treatment of him in the media.

    It is awful, just awful.  Our society needs to confront this media cancer.


    Ha Ha (none / 0) (#103)
    by cmugirl on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:19:03 PM EST
    ..I like that..."blow your hair back arrogant"!

    Biased is a wrong term (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by koshembos on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:16:01 AM EST
    The term bias is simply the wrong way to describe the media and the blogs treatment of Hillary. Hate is the proper term. From day one of Bill Clinton's presidency, the media has felt that it is the cat and Bill and Hillary are the mice. Facts made, and make, absolutely no difference.

    We progressive should be strongly and squarely against hate no matter whoever the target is. This election season shows that many progressives have more right wing values than progressive ones.

    Jimmy and Rosalyn (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:23:00 AM EST
    Carter were treated much the same way. Although with the Carter's it wasn't so much hate as it was disdain for the poor little hicks. It was ugly then and it's ugly now. SOP for our arrogant and unethical media. Also a hoot that an arrogant insider like Andrea Mitchell would call anyone else arrogant.

    I'm actually beginning to come around to Bob Somersby's point of view. They, the media, with some exceptions, actually are as dumb as I think they are.


    You beat me to that (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Daryl24 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:32:59 AM EST
    It's always funny when one of the Beltway twitnits calls someone arrogant.

    Somerby's other point (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by BernieO on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:43:22 AM EST
    is that most of the blame lies with Democratic leaders who do not call the media on their bias or stand up for their candidates the way Republicans do. I would add that rank and file Dems are also part of the problem because, at least until now, they rarely raise a stink when our people or issues get trashed the way rank and file Republicans do. In fact, far too many Dems actually buy the garbage that the media spreads. Look how many of them still don't get that Whitewater was a fake scandal that was pushed on us by the NY Times and W Post. How many of them bought the lies about Gore and voted for Nader?
    To me one of the worst examples of how unprofessional our media is is the way they have failed to report on the political prosecutions of Democrats. It took bloggers to get them to cover the Justice Department scandals, but even now they are barely covering the most egregious example, the conviction of Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. How can it be that when so many Republican and Democratic States Attorneys General are up in arms about this our media is not all over the story? You can believe if this were happening to a Republican they would cover it if only because Republicans would be screaming bloody murder. Where are our leaders? Why in the world do they ignore this kind of thing?

    Absolutely! (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:43:36 AM EST
    BernieO when you said:
    To me one of the worst examples of how unprofessional our media is is the way they have failed to report on the political prosecutions of Democrats. It took bloggers to get them to cover the Justice Department scandals, but even now they are barely covering the most egregious example, the conviction of Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. How can it be that when so many Republican and Democratic States Attorneys General are up in arms about this our media is not all over the story? You can believe if this were happening to a Republican they would cover it if only because Republicans would be screaming bloody murder. Where are our leaders? Why in the world do they ignore this kind of thing?

    I've been having a screaming hissy fit about this for some time. Where has the leadership of the Democratic Party been?


    Don't forget (none / 0) (#17)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:43:38 AM EST
    the photo of Rosalyn Carter standing next to John Wayne Gacy at a political event.

    Things like unflattering photos are often used to smear candidates.


    If progressives from such blogs as (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by hairspray on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:06:09 AM EST
    the one with the greek name would have been more professional in their criticism of Hillary and not so vitriolic we might have dealt the media a strong blow.  But they too joined in the right wing screed.  "I just don't trust her, she should have left him, etc. " were some of the more mild memes on that site.

    Second that emotion... (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Camorrista on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:31:56 PM EST
    May I say, hairspray, that your post seems way too kind?

    With very few exceptions (fingers of one hand, anybody?) the "progressive" blogs have been as vicious, demented and defamtory as the worst of the right-wing sites.

    If it were only the commenters, that would be unpleasant, but understandable--after all, posting a comment is so easy that--for angry zealots--the temptation to spew a little hate can be hard to resist.  What changed the equation, I think, was the co-opting of the blog hosts by the nastiest of the commenters.  

    Now, at Kos, or HuffPo, or TPM, or Yglesias, or Klein, or My DD, or Crooks & Liars--or any number of others--featured posts & diaries egg on the commenters.  The result is that anybody who posts even the mildest of objections to Obama, or the mildest of compliments to Clinton, is instantly shouted down as a fool, a liar, and, most often, a paid pawn of the Clinton campaign.  

    What's heartbreaking is that once upon a time  "progressive" bloggers viewed the MSM with never-ending skepticism (if not justifiable hostility).  The idea was the MSM shouldn't be trusted--that if the Times, or the networks, or cable news told us something, we should not assume the truth of it.

    But now, when the MSM tell us Obama is better than ice cream, and Clinton is worse than toxic waste, how few blog-masters say, prove it, you lying bastard.  And how many, instead say, right on!  Get her and get her good.  Are they so stupid, or so angry, that they don't grasp that they're doing the Republicans' work?  Or does the destruction of Clinton matter more to them than anything in the whole wide world?


    Andrea Mitchell is reprehensible (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by DemBillC on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:25:56 AM EST
    the fact that she is MSNBC's choice to report from the Clinton Campaign is in keeping with ther anti Clinton stance. Let me get this straight, they slime the hell out of Hillary every chance they get from the beginning of the race and then they complain that Hillary's campaign does not treat them well. From saying she won the Senate because of her husbands infidelities to calling Hillary a pimp MSNBC has been guilty of being slimy. Just recently in the last MSNBC debate two moments stood ot that were blantantly Anti Hillary - one in which they accidentally cut to video of Clinton when they introduced it as an unflattering clip of Obama, the other when moderator Brian Williams did not let Clinton speak after Obama, insisting the need to go to commercial and explaining, "Television doesn't stop." I would treat MSNBC so called journalists with comtempt as well if I were in the Clinton campaign.

    Is the New York Times trying to suck? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by diplomatic on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:27:54 AM EST
    How could any college educated journalist even look at themselves in the mirror when they write such a blatant lie (about that MSNBC letter) ?

    I'm becoming convinced that this type of thing is no longer a case of lazy journalism, but flat out manipulative/bias driven phenomenon.  I'm not saying it's a coordinated, cabal-like effort between different media outlets, but more like some kind of collective sickness that always seems to develop similar symptoms.

    Andrea Mitchell (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by diplomatic on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:30:50 AM EST
    Comes pretty close to implying that if you're ever told your daughter is getting "pimped out"  then it's just your own damn fault for not being nice enough to the press.

    "Damn baby, I'm sorry I slapped you but you didn't smile when I yelled at you."

    But can I saw a nice thing about Mitchell? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:58:39 AM EST
    I like her hair.

    Tough , tough call (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by kmblue on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:33:19 AM EST
    as to who I dislike more--the GOP or the media.
    And I work in the media!  Which is why I'm grateful for being anonymous here.
    I began in journalism because of Watergate.
    Unbiased reporting is over, with a very few exceptions.
    And if anyone thinks journalists don't hunt in packs, like wolves or killer whales, I beg to differ.

    I thought the notion of inevitability (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by stillife on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:40:16 AM EST
    Was trumpeted by the MSM, not the Clinton campaign.  And now they're using it to take her down.  It's all part of their narrative.

    Cut 'n Paste! (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by JohnS on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:15:08 AM EST
    "We're the MEDIA baby, and when we 'report,' we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll 'report' again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's screenwriters...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

    I saw a television program (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by hairspray on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:13:26 AM EST
    with Nancy Gibbs (Time) and a few others being interviewed by someone about Bill Clinton's  "affair" back in the late '90's. Nancy was on a tirade and the interviewer reminded Nancy that Bill's approval rating was in the high 60%.  She said "well, we just haven't shaped the story yet".  Out of the horses mouth.

    Rove said that (none / 0) (#40)
    by kmblue on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:20:27 AM EST
    to a journalist while talking about how the Bush administraion would handle the press.  
    Worked too, didn't it?

    In my opinion, September 11, 2001 marked the end of journalism and the beginning of stenography.
    But that's just me.


    Arrogant Bushies... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by JohnS on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:57:52 AM EST
    Thinking they're the only ones in the reality-creation business.

    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:47:20 AM EST
    The media started all the talk about "inevitability" and then attacked her for what they had started.

    I think Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton too are both way too smart to think that a female candidate in this country was "inevitable". They had to know it would be an uphill battle especially against a media that has NEVER given them a fair shake.


    Exactly right (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:32:20 PM EST
    The media made up the inevitability meme, and now they want to crucify her with it. That's the game these incredible trolls play with our country and our lives. As Somersby so often says, the dead are in the ground in Iraq because of them.

    You are (none / 0) (#57)
    by BernieO on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:45:11 AM EST
    CORRECT!! I heard Hillary say several times that she did not think it was inevitable that she would get the nomination. They are the ones that kept touting this line.

    Sing along with Timmeh, (none / 0) (#65)
    by JohnS on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:02:49 AM EST
    Maureen, Tucker, Chris, Keith, Frank and the rest of the gang:

    We write the songs
    That make the whole world sing...
    We write the songs we write the songs!


    Obama is gonna get his too. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by JohnS on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:03:01 AM EST
    Eagle-eyed Bob Somerby picked this up on "Tucker" in his post yesterday:

    CUMMINGS (2/27/08): The bar for [Obama] is very high. And the media, all of us, have set that bar there for him because of our respect for what has been the Clinton machine. And so I don`t necessarily agree with your premise that everybody is in love with [Obama]. Frankly the relations on his plane are not so great.

    CARLSON: Right. That's true.

    CUMMINGS: Because he never interacts with the media.

    The Golden One better show up in the back of the plane with donuts and banter pretty soon, or the press is gonna begin to shower him with what they've already showered on Clinton/Gore/Clinton...

    CNN (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:09:32 AM EST
    had a great "candid moment" film up a while back of Clinton teasing and interacting with the press corp on her plane.  She looked really lovely and relaxed and they were talking about her fashion faux pas and it was a nice moment.  And then when she left (plane was taking off) she shouted back something about sending them some food back after they were off the ground.

    I think it was about three or four weeks ago that I said some of my friends in the press were becoming disillusioned with the Obama campaign because they were being made to stand out in the cold and wait in line to get into his events and access to the Great One had been cut off.  That is a big, big mistake, and I think some of the reason we're seeing a turning of the tide is because you do not tick off the people on the ground.  Those "cub" reporters file stories that the on-camera guys read (which is why I think of Brian Williams as a newsreader rather than a reporter) and the stories they are getting fed now are not the happy ones of hope and change.


    Has anyone else noticed that one of (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:13:35 AM EST
    the people praising John McCain in his 'biography' ad is TIM RUSSERT!  Yes Obama is gonna get his ...

    So you are looking forward (none / 0) (#85)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:51:09 AM EST
    to Obama getting trashed in the fall because Clinton got trashed in the primaries?  

    That comment you responded to doesn't say that (none / 0) (#88)
    by diplomatic on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:55:41 AM EST
    but it serves as a nice warning about what is likely to come from the media.

    McCain has been the true darling all along.  Especially at NBC/MSNBC.

    The conflicts of interest at that network are through the roof.


    don't put words in my mouth (none / 0) (#100)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:34:07 PM EST
    but I can see from the overactive garbage you've put elsewhere in this thread that I don't care what you think.

    Yeah I saw that (none / 0) (#30)
    by kmblue on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:08:31 AM EST
    It may be my hate for the press may outrun my
    hate for the Republicans pretty soon...

    It should (none / 0) (#62)
    by BernieO on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:55:57 AM EST
    They are the ones that willingly repeat Republican talking points - like the bogus "Gore claimed to have invented the internet" lie. If the media had bothered to inform the public about the tactics used by Atwater/Rove and set the record straight about who Bush really was there is NO WAY the American people would have voted him into office. In a very real way, the media is responsible for the terrible shape our country is in today. There is no way Republicans could have done so much damage to this country if the media had just told the truth. (E.G. Tax cuts NEVER pay for themselves and the statement that they increase revenue is used by McCain and other Republicans to obscure that fact. Bush repeatedly lied to us about his record on things like health care.)

    The Bush record was there (none / 0) (#75)
    by hairspray on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:17:41 AM EST
    for all to see.  The media was so fixated on Clinton and by extension Al Gore, that they simply "forgot" to report that.

    Obama and the media (none / 0) (#59)
    by Nasarius on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:49:15 AM EST
    So far, I count ABC (Rezko), the NYT (public financing pledge), and MSNBC (the debate) as starting to turn against Obama and treat him like they do any other Dem candidate.

    You're really not that far off with your suggestion of donuts and banter. The press really is that shallow, as Somerby loves to point out.


    Do you all remember Travelgate? (none / 0) (#77)
    by hairspray on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:22:32 AM EST
    In '93 it was discovered that the Washington Press Corps had been grandly feted by the WH travel agency and they were extremely unhappy when Clinton decided to change vendors.  It seems the WH favorite had been caught mixing his own funds with the travel funds and was caught.  Well the Washington press were so outraged that they weren't going to get the kid glove treatment that they immediately started in on the "unfairness of it all".  Never mind the unethics of it all.

    I have a feeling (none / 0) (#78)
    by BernieO on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:22:51 AM EST
    that being nice to the media makes no difference if they prefer someone else. One reason the Clintons are leery of the media is that the media take what they say out of context. The whole flap about Gore claiming he invented the internet came from an interview he did with Wolf Blitzer, if I recall correctly. He was asked what he was proud of doing when he was in the Senate and he said one thing was pushing for the money to get the internet created. Republicans deliverately twisted his words and the media ran with it, repeatedly mocking Gore as a delusional fool. I seriously doubt that his playing nice would have made any difference. The media hates candidates that are knowledgeable because it makes them feel inferior.

    BernieO, the MSM always favors GOP (none / 0) (#108)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:24:50 PM EST
    For sources documenting the MSM bias against  Dem candidates (HRC, Gore, Edwards, Obama) you may want to scroll up to my upstream post - "Media Matters: Summary of Candidate Coverage". There are links.

    Could we have an open thread (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:09:21 AM EST
    So I could post this:

    Here's some Obama press:

    US presidential candidate Barack Obama dropped another hint about his foreign-policy thinking on Thursday, saying European governments had to pull their weight in Afghanistan and not rely so much on the United States to do the "dirty work" against Taliban fighters.

    Pull their weight? What an outrageous crock.  Is that any way to treat allies that are doing us a favor?

    Link to Turkana's post on this  

    Maybe he should (none / 0) (#79)
    by BernieO on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:24:10 AM EST
    pull his own weight by having some oversight hearings about this since he chairs the committee responsible for NATO issues.

    HRC and the press corp (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:26:35 AM EST
    I don't know if this was the one Kathy was referring to, but how can you watch this and not think she's likable?  I'm convinced the media has brainwashed the country about who she really is.  LINK

    That was really nice! thanks for sharing it. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:40:13 AM EST
    Hillary has a great personality. (none / 0) (#64)
    by diplomatic on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:01:26 AM EST
    Bill Clinton should feel very lucky.

    Why has the liberal blogs and the Media not (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by DemBillC on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:29:55 AM EST
    taken Oamato task for his voting for the 2005 bill aka the Dick Cheney Energy Bill, which of course Hillay voted against. That Obama voted for
    that bill is the single biggest reason, along with his support of al things Nuclear, to vote against him. After Gerorge Bush we need a Green candidate badly, not a Cheney ass kisser.

    I didn't know (none / 0) (#86)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:52:04 AM EST
    Obama voted for that atrocious "energy" bill. If I wasn't all ready a Clinton supporter that vote would certainly make me one. Do you have a link where I could find the information? I have some health issues and can't get around much but I am one heck of an emailer!

    Therein Lies The Problem... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by AmyinSC on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:03:35 PM EST
    His RECORD is not being perused, just like Dubya's wasn't.  All anyone had to do was look at what he did to TX, like with Education and a surplus, to know what he was going to do with the country!  Apparently, the press couldn't be bothered with doing some actual work.

    Looks like Josh Marshall's (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by frankly0 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:38:45 AM EST
    fabrication about Clinton's letter got picked up by our "unbiased" (just ask them!) media.

    It would be nice if someone could start some sort of "TPM Watch" to keep those arrogant, smug, despicably biaed "journalists" at TPM accountable to their distortions and deceits.

    From my point of view, they've really perpetrated a fraud on their readers. Throughout their development, their most important stories, including the fired AGs story, have depended critically on input from Democratic readers of all stripes. Having  built up their fame on this premise, they then gladly use the clout they have assembled to trash what is essentially half the Democratic Party. I wonder how many of those Democrats who have supported TPM in the past now feel deeply betrayed by them? (Much the same might be said about DailyKos -- but at least DailyKos does not pretend to be bound by any kind of journalistic even-handedness).

    In general, I wonder how those of us -- and there are many -- who have felt pushed away and marginalized by the bias and mob mentality of much of the left blogosphere might best react in the long run to this behavior. I personally don't see how I could ever feel any trust in many of these bloggers in the future. The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior, and I hardly expect in any case to see even the smallest particle of regret in these bloggers.

    Not to sound too self-congratulatory, but I think that one reason so many of us have resisted the charms of Obama is that we are not fundamentally driven by hype, and don't fall in with mass hysteria. We are a distinctive lot, and I think a more analytical lot. Paul Krugman, I think, epitomizes the mentality.

    I wonder if anyone else has any ideas on this point? Where do we go from here?

    I also stopped visiting KOS (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Paladin on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:04:04 AM EST
    TPM, Huff Post et al about a month ago when all of this vitriol mushroomed.  Very disappointing to say the least.  And I'm not even an ardent Hillary supporter - I preferred Edwards (another one who was trashed by the press, but that's another subject).

    The problem with these blogs mentioned above is that they drown out any objective discussion of Obama's qualifications on the merits. This appears to be one of the few that, for the most part, have lively discussions without resorting to name-calling and viciousness.


    To....(drum roll) (none / 0) (#54)
    by kmblue on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:43:17 AM EST
    TalkLeft for starters!

    contribute today!

    See ya, I gotta go to work.
    Or what passes for it.


    What site or sites one goes to is one question (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by frankly0 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:03:00 AM EST
    but the larger question would be, what is the organizing principle? What is the agenda?

    One aspect of the blogosphere is its tendency sometimes to engage in a rather ugly, ignorant, mass hysteria. That's why over at DailyKos you can get one highly recommended diary after another promoting totally crackpot causes, such as certain allegations of election fraud that are the worst sort of conspiracy theories.

    What I think is that in the latest effective "purge" of those Democrats who support Hillary, it's the nuttier, more hysterical posters and commenters who have mostly remained at DailyKos - those of us who find irrational knee-jerk "thinking" repugnant have mostly moved elsewhere -- including, I'm sure, in some cases, off the blogosphere altogether. I suspect that, as crazy as DailyKos has been at times in the past, the new, purged version of DailyKos is only going to be considerably worse.

    The question would be how the rest of us might organize elsewhere.


    you hit the mark with this one (none / 0) (#73)
    by diplomatic on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:11:44 AM EST
    And the thing I would put money on (none / 0) (#81)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:36:52 AM EST
    is that when the whole Obama thing crumbles - as I think it will - it will be the mainstream - NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and the print media, etc. - which will excoriate the blogs - ALL of them - for failing to hold to their mission of being the anti-corporate media, even though the media were saying and doing the exact same things about Clinton and Obama before it all fell apart.

    And just like the media not taking any responsibility for failing to do its due diligence on Bush and the Iraq war, it will not take any responsibility for the Obama-disaster, either.

    What the blogs will have lost is a ton of credibility going forward; they will be a long time recovering from their hyper-partisanship, even among those who once saw them as the alternative to corporate media.

    Is it fair for the blogs to lose credibility when the mainstream just keeps on keepin' on, as if they actually still have it?  Of course not, but then, there is very little that is fair about any of this.  But just because only one segment of the media pays does not mean that there should be no consequence; DailyKos and TPM, for example, made a choice, and choices have consequences - among them loss of readership, loss of participation, loss of trust.  And the growth of new blogs which will be the same kind of foil to the super-blogs as the super-blogs used to be to the media.

    [And if Aaaaaandrea Mitchell is reading this, I hate your hair and your snotty tone]


    In other news... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by OrangeFur on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:30:54 PM EST
    ... a jury today convicted John X. Smith of murder even though he was clearly innocent. "Smith was just so arrogant during the trial. Just because he was out of the country at the time, and Jones' fingerprints were on the murder weapon, he thought he was going to be acquitted. He really brought this on himself."

    ... NBA referees defended their calls during the NBA Finals, when the entire roster of the San Antonio Spurs fouled out in the first quarter of each game, allowing Briarview High School to score a stunning upset in the series. "The Spurs acted like they were unbeatable. It just rubbed as the wrong way. Also, they looked at us the wrong way sometime last year."

    What utter failures the media have been. If they had any sense of journalistic ethics, they'd realize how stupid they sound making those excuses. I'd replace the lot of them with the cast of Saturday Night Live, myself.

    A tactic as old as politics (4.00 / 1) (#46)
    by 1jane on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:32:11 AM EST
    If Clinton had won the past 11 states we would not hear a peep about media bias. It is a tactic as old as politics. When the contestent is down, blame the media.

    No, some of us have been saying this (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:36:48 AM EST
    Even when she was winning consistently. On Super Tuesday she pulled off pretty much every major state, and yet the media stories were still very negative to her and positive towards Sen Obama. Until about a week ago there was almost no major journalistic pieces on Sen Obama's positions, fact check, or anything other than "he is a great movement story."

    Win or lose, it was not balanced.


    Hi 1jane (none / 0) (#52)
    by kmblue on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:41:11 AM EST
    did you find Obama's response ad yet? ;)

    Certain quarters (none / 0) (#101)
    by JohnS on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:38:08 PM EST
    have noticed on ongoing (since the 1970s) media bias against Democrats in general, and of late, Clinton/Gore/Clinton specifically. I believe the gentle point of this thread, 1jane, is to remind that so far Obama has been spared "reporting as usual,"  and be prepared for the worst if/when HRC is outta the game...

    Absolutely false (none / 0) (#109)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:01:13 PM EST
    Many of us actually turned away from Obama before Super Tuesday to defend Hillary from the blatant media bias.

    Your statement is simply a crock. Recall the anti-media New Hampshire vote - well before Obama started winning all these states.


    Problem with Clinton's handling (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:40:49 AM EST
    Clinton's letter said that a suspension of Shuster wasn't enough. A lot of Clinton bloggers said she wasn't saying that she wanted him fired but I never recalled the Clinton camp making a revised statement. If she had, there's a beef, but a minor one, since the initial statement was badly written in that talking about Shuster's punishment it appeared as if she were calling for a higher punishment (which, since employers aren't allowed to inflict physical punishment on their employees, meant firing Shuster).

    As it was, anything beyond the complaint was going to fail. A candidate is not going to change the philosophy of a television network and she should not expect that kind of change any more than a candidate should expect changing rules of a political party in mid-primary.

    I'd like to discuss this dead issue more but I'm looking for a gay hooker with cocaine in the back of a limousine. He's not wearing a flag lapel pin, but he's accompanied by a black man in the native dress of Kenya who might be on his cell phone talking with al Qaeda.

    Well (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:48:36 AM EST
    Of course you do not recall it.

    I do and I blogged it.


    All Out Attack (none / 0) (#5)
    by Athena on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:23:07 AM EST
    The hostility knows no bounds - whether implemented through lies or wild self-regard (ala Mitchell).

    When I saw that article last night, (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:35:03 AM EST
    the first thing I noticed was the point about the Shuster letter. I just about went through the roof.

    I hate the media more. (none / 0) (#19)
    by ajain on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:45:52 AM EST
    Atleast the GOP is upfront about their motives. They aren't trying to hide behind the pretence of unbiased reporting and journalistic integrity.

    And honestly. I like John McCain, very much.


    Yes, McCain is going to give you (none / 0) (#22)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:50:29 AM EST
    some Supreme Court justices you are just going to love for the next 25 years

    Maybe Obama would too (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:54:01 AM EST
    He has given me no reason to feel he stands by liberal values....in fact, he's given every reason to believe he'd cater to the right wing if it suits him (because he's already done so).

    McCain has said that he plans (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:57:15 AM EST
    to point justices in the mold of Alito

    Obama voted no on Alito, so you are really wide of the mark

    Try again


    Okay, I'll try again (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:04:30 AM EST

    He has so many facets, and he's been running a presidential campaign since he joined the Senate.

    He'll vote one way, then talk another way.  He's all over the place.  He doesn't stand for anything, except Obama.

    If I were to ever vote for Obama, I'd have to ask myself:

    Which Obama?

    Could I vote only for the progressive Obama, and not the one who panders to the right wing?

    Could we elect only 40% of him and leave the rest in the Senate?


    No, your likely choice is (none / 0) (#91)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:58:48 AM EST
    100 percent of Obama or 100 percent of McCain

    It's the real grown up world

    And I am sure that 98% of those who supported Hillary will support Obama once some time has passed, and the alternative is Bart Simpson's grandfather with a militaristic edge


    "presidential campaign" (none / 0) (#110)
    by diogenes on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:41:48 PM EST
    And Hillary hasn't been running a presidential campaign since she got to the Senate, if not since 1992?  Please...

    Yes. (none / 0) (#28)
    by ajain on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:07:01 AM EST
    Judges are very important. But I doubt it would be the deciding factor. After all, McCain is more to the left than the rest of his party on this matter. He opposes a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. I know that isnt enough, but if we were fighting on issues, there is no reason for sef-described progressives to vote for Obama.

    let's not forget the process (none / 0) (#34)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:12:26 AM EST
    Judges have to be approved.  If both houses are democratically controlled, McCain has to, at best, squeeze through a moderate.

    Just don't think too much about Mukasey! (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jawbone on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:41:43 AM EST
    Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein, from two of the most liberal and solidly Democratic states in the union, voted with the ReThugs on that one.

    We see almost daily how well that's working out. But what's a little Unitary Executive power between friends....

    The next nominations to the Supreme Court will determine the direction of this nation for the next 20-30 years. Bush I and II not only appointed ideologues, but also made sure they were young and wicked smart. (Well, BushBoy's for sure; Bush I was less of an ideologue.)

    Universal healthcare? Would it survive a Robertson majority court? Civil rights? Civil liberties? Much less Roe v. Wade.

    People do not really think about the Supremes--even in '04, after so much was known about BushBoy and Cheney's unconstitutional actions. It requires looking beyond 4 or 8 years; it requires an understanding of how our government works. It's going to be tough.

    But, John McCain is not our friend.

    And I share concerns about Obama, but I guess I assume he's definitely to the left of McCain. Assumptions can, of course, be dangerous.

    C'mon, TX and OH, listen to Tina Fey! It's not time to settel this until we know more about Barack Obama! Pleeeeeeeeeease!


    Good point. (none / 0) (#38)
    by ajain on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:19:30 AM EST
    Yea, so basically if you have McCain with a Democratic House and Senate it aint so bad. Plus, I hate to say this, but I trust him more with the Iraq War or any war for that matter.

    And what exactly (none / 0) (#45)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:31:57 AM EST
    do you trust him to do about the Iraq War, besides keep it going for another 100 years?

    If our Democratic Congress would do its job (none / 0) (#72)
    by diplomatic on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:09:34 AM EST
    there is no way we will be in Iraq 100 years.  Furthermore, John McCain will not be President 100 years.

    The 100 years thing is out of context... (none / 0) (#83)
    by K Lynne on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:47:08 AM EST
    I honestly don't believe he was talking about "100 years of war" as so many are repeating the story.  

    snips from an AP story:

    When McCain was asked about Bush's theory that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for 50 years, the senator said: "Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

    A troop presence that does not involve Americans being harmed is, by definition, not a war.

    The senator pointed to the half-century or longer U.S. presence in South Korea and other parts of the world where forces are stationed to deter conflict, not fight one.

    "No American argues against our military presence in Korea or Japan or Germany or Kuwait or other places, or Turkey, because America is not receiving casualties,"


    it's silly anyway, the notion we'd have to stay (none / 0) (#92)
    by diplomatic on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:59:38 AM EST
    McCain would be President for 8 years at most.  He has no say in what future Presidents decide to do about Iraq.

    And what harm can be done (none / 0) (#93)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:01:16 PM EST
    in 8 years?  The last 8 have been fine

    you're coming across (none / 0) (#97)
    by diplomatic on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:08:06 PM EST
    as a logically deficient, rhetorically lazy, straw man peddler.

    And you are coming off (none / 0) (#98)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:14:52 PM EST
    as just slightly bitter

    McCain is not the worst thing in the world (none / 0) (#71)
    by diplomatic on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:07:42 AM EST
    I'm just relieved the Republicans didn't nominate Tancredo! At least the "backup plan" should our Democratic nominee lose, is not the worst case scenario...

    So "not the worst thing in the world" (none / 0) (#89)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:56:11 AM EST
    is better than Obama?

    Oh God, this type of response hurts my brain (none / 0) (#95)
    by diplomatic on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:02:51 PM EST
    If I say that getting my toes cut off is not the worst thing in the world, it doesn't mean that I think having my toes cut off is better than winning the lottery.

    So you would rather have someone picking judges (none / 0) (#87)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:55:21 AM EST
    who voted for Roberts and Alito than someone who voted against those two wingers?  

    Help me out here BTD, this can't be where we are going, can it?


    I Had To... (none / 0) (#37)
    by AmyinSC on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:18:20 AM EST
    Rip off a letter to the NY Times, both their letters dep't and corrections, though the damage is already done.  This is EXACTLY what they did to Al Gore - reported some falsehood, like Love Story, Love Canal, and the Internet.  Of course, then they would issue a correction, but continued to repeat the falsehood.  I bet you they do the same thing here, even if they print a retaction (not holding my breath).

    OK - so from what source, besides TalkLeft, CAN I get my news???  Toronto?  London?


    has anyone seen (none / 0) (#13)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:39:40 AM EST
    the dvd News War about how the media enabled the war?  Chilling.  This passage from Mitchell reminds me of that doc.

    BTD, do you still think Mitchell wasn't shrugging off the healthcare section of the debate as annoying?  I am totally reading it that way in light of this statement from her.

    but of course they (none / 0) (#16)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:40:55 AM EST
    won't publish a correction (re: saying she called for Shuster to be fired) b/c they refused to publish the letter from her staff strongly denying the story about low moral, etc.

    This is the same paper (none / 0) (#44)
    by JohnS on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:31:02 AM EST
    that hasn't yet 'corrected' its Whitewater 'reporting,' or offered 'corrections' for their Gore-related crapola like the "Love Canal" story, the "Love Story" story, and the "I invented the internets" story. Old habits are hard to break.

    At this point, it's not simply a media bias (none / 0) (#18)
    by tigercourse on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:43:55 AM EST
    against Clinton. It's a media bias for McCain. They have basically shot her down. She's plummeting into the trees. And they are now setting their sites on Obama. He's gonna get blasted out of the sky.

    I don't know what to say. I don't know what to do. I don't know that this can be fixed in even the long term.

    They may have wounded her, but not over yet (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by diplomatic on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:49:32 AM EST
    She can still win this nomination.  Can we officially wait for March 4th to vote?

    I mean this talk of her being down and out is pretty ridiculous if she ends up winning Texas and Ohio.  That allows her over a month before Pennsylvania and that's an eternity allowing for anything to turn around.

    Neither can get all the delegates to lock this up so I suspect that if she does fairly well on Tuesday she will be staying in until at least June.


    Believe You Me... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by AmyinSC on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:38:32 AM EST
    I have NOT given up on her!  I contribute regularly to her campaign, started a blog (at a friend's insistance) primarily abt her and why her, not Obama, and am STUNNED that she continues to do so well, be so gracious, warm, thoughtful, courageous, and committed DESPITE the horrible press.  And that's just the thing - she and Obama are basically tied when she has gotten nothing but bad press, and he's gotten noting but good press.  I mean, really - isn't it REMARKABLE?  Obama lies and lies and lis abt her, as does the press, but those who WATCH her know better; those who look at her RECORD know better; those for whom she stands up (like me) KNOW better.  So, heck to the yes, I am supporting her all the way!

    I've tried not to jynx it (none / 0) (#61)
    by diplomatic on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:55:30 AM EST
    but I'd be lying if I said that March 4th doesn't mean a lot to me.  I just can't wait for this to be decided one way or the other.  I feel that Clinton has proven she is ready to be our nominee and fight the Republican machine this year and maybe Barack would be perfect as the VP so he can get valuable experience fighting alongside her.

    But a joint ticket is not looking so likely anymore.   They seem to dislike each other quite a bit.


    Chelsea Clinton in Vermont yesterday... (none / 0) (#29)
    by dutchfox on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:07:57 AM EST
    Oops sorry about that (hit the wrong button)
    Burlington Free Press 1 March 2008: Chelsea says: Vote for Mom She was downtown (nearly below freezing temps) then went up to UVM and spoke with students for well over 1 hour, very nicely answered questions from students.

    The media doesn't lead. It follows (none / 0) (#31)
    by Manuel on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:09:06 AM EST
    Think back to the Iraq war coverage.  The MSM is driven by sales (i.e. ratings).  The market for unbiased, substantial issue based journalism is small.  Political campaigns know this.  I credit the Obama campaign for taking full advantage though it doesn't represent a change from politics as usual (guess you can't change everything).  The Obama novelty will wear off.  I have no doubt that they will adjust to the changing conditions for the GE if Obama is the nominee.

    The left blogs for the most part have been a disappointment.  I have always had this image of progressives being more rational and respectful than the other side.  Unfortunately, it seems that we are subject to mob psychology just like any other group.

    BTW, thanks for this blog.  It is truly an oasis.

    I have been stunned by some of the left blogs (none / 0) (#60)
    by jawbone on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:52:34 AM EST
    I still can't believe how easily they've slid into MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) behavior.

    It is obviousy extremely difficult to fight one's biases, but I thought many did try to analyze, balance, etc.

    In the same way the biases of the MCM make me doubt even their best reporting, I now must take that skepticism to some of our best known blogs.

    Probably always should have done.


    Andrea Mitchell (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:20:25 AM EST
    just another media pig imbibing at the media trough, soooooo not special, sooooooo self annointed, sooooooo National Enquirer

    Journalism 101, please! (none / 0) (#41)
    by JoeCHI on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:23:18 AM EST
    Excuse me, Mrs. Greenspan, but, since when are the standards of journalism predicated upon either a campaign's strategy, or its congeniality?

    NPR had segment on MCM coverage of Hillary (none / 0) (#58)
    by jawbone on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:49:00 AM EST
    this morning. Had tape of man at a TX rally standing up and telling the press they have treated Hillary badly.

    Then, in a f/up discussion, NPR host asked Mark Shields if the press was really being unfair to Hillary.

    Can you possibly guess how Shields answered? Let's just say he did not in any way endanger his standing in the Village of the Damned Idiots.

    (I do wish NPR offered transcripts--is there any place to access their transcripts? Other than paying the big bucks?)

    I have been appalled for months (none / 0) (#70)
    by kenosharick on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:07:10 AM EST
    by the anti-Hillary vitriol in the MSM and the liberal blogs as well. For the life of me, I cannot figure out what the Clintos did to these people to bring out such anger and hatred. What is sad is that as biased as it is; MSNBC is the best of the lot. The Media cost her this nomination.

    Ya know (none / 0) (#94)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:02:01 PM EST
    I've been asking that question for years. What in the world did they ever do to deserve such rapid hate? There are politicians I like and those I don't like very much and then some I actually dislike intensely, like Bush and DeLay for example. And Sensenbrenner from my state of Wisconsin. But never, not once have I ever used the kind of language about these three Republicans as many, a great many, liberals have used about the Clintons. What's with that anyway?

    Oh, dear (none / 0) (#80)
    by ahazydelirium on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:26:14 AM EST
    And here I thought the media was supposed to report facts.

    I guess I didn't get the memo about their second purpose: to force humility on people.

    How self-aggrandizing!

    Let's You and Him Fight (none / 0) (#102)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:58:08 PM EST
    "They started this inevitability thing."

    What crap.  The media whore media started that yammering Bushist fascist circlejerk meme, shortly after Karl "Miss Piggy" Rove slipped it into their drinks, like Propaganda Rohypnol.

    I saw the article this morning (none / 0) (#104)
    by cmugirl on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:21:39 PM EST
    ...and did something I've never done - I fired off an email to the Editor pointing out this very fact -   reporting seems to have gone out the window.


    Bringing back class to Washington (none / 0) (#112)
    by glennmcgahee on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:50:39 AM EST
    It is how the media framed Ronald and Nancy Reagan after The Carter Presidency. Jimmy Carter was probably one of the most honest and open presidents ever. The elction of Reagan was heralded by the press as bringing glamor back to the White House. You see, its all about the parties and glitz. Thats why the Oprah factor is so important to them. Just imagine all the stars that will be appearing in the Obama Whitehouse. The Clintons are from Arkansas, read: hillbillies.