Double Standards: Part 1 Million One

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Talk Left friend Kos writes today:

But aside from that, I'd be saying the exact same thing [about MI and FL] I'm saying now, I'd just swap out Clinton's name for Obama.

Kos in January 2008:

Clinton was the only top-tier candidate to refuse the ultimate Iowa and New Hampshire pander by removing her name from the Michigan ballot. That makes her essentially the de facto winner since Edwards and Obama, caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire, took their name off Michigan's ballot. Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won't last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates. So while Obama and Edwards kneecap their chances of winning, Clinton is single-mindedly focused on the goal.

Just sayin' More . .

BTW, as part of our continuing TPM Watch, now Josh Marshall denies he wants Clinton out of the race. We laugh. For the record, I think Clinton should probably drop out of the race after May 6 if things go badly for her. But I am not going to mount a negative campaign against her if she does not.

< The Truth Hurts | The New Obama Strategy: Clinton Should Stay In The Race >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Oh Wow how schizo....by the way (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by athyrio on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:42:18 PM EST
    I wonder if his numbers are tanking??

    note the trend (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Turkana on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:41:39 PM EST
    TalkLeft is doing pretty good too (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:55:47 PM EST
    Traffic is up 68k. It was really up during the Libby trial but gaining new people all the time.

    in the past month (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by Turkana on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:59:09 PM EST
    the big orange has begun to demonstrate that quantity over quality can't sustain itself.

    I hope you're right. I seems numbers (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Joelarama on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:54:57 PM EST
    are the most important thing to the proprietor of that site.  Perhaps it will wake him up.

    I know (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by nemo52 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:37:40 PM EST
    I stopped giving the Big Orange hits several months ago, and I have no desire to go back.

    I just started coming here regularly (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by thereyougo on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:16:53 PM EST
    and only used to be on a read only at DK and TPM although I'll be forever grateful for Josh's work in the USA scandals.

    I used to post at TPM , but no much lately; so now I'll just be here at TL for little while.


    In all fairness (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:17:34 PM EST
    Kos' numbers always go up during election periods.  Possibly some of his decline after the first week in March is because we haven't had a major primary since Ohio/Texas.

    Notice that his traffic increased as elections drew near.  As I recall his traffic was high in 2006, dropped in 2007 and rose again in 2008.

    I can only guess that he's lost some traffic from people like me who've dropped his site entirely, but he may have gained some traffic from the Obama crowd.  

    Given the content of so many comments I read before I left for good; I'd say the Obama crowd (neophytes and people confused by politics)
    had invaded en masse.


    I never expected his site to be perfect (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:17:31 AM EST
    I certainly never expected him to be perfect after the pie war ;)  I visit about every other day but there isn't anything there to read that I want to read.  It's the pits over there and nothing expansive happens within my gray matter reading there.  Being told repeatedly that I'm wrong for questioning those who should be worshipped does not increase my awareness and knowledge and add to the quality of my existence.

    Try this for alexa comparisons... (none / 0) (#127)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:18:49 PM EST
    Side by Side Alexa traffic comparisons for DailyKos, TalkingPointsMemo and TalkLeft.

    seems to be (none / 0) (#132)
    by Turkana on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:32:39 PM EST
    talkleft holding steady, tpm down a little, dk down quite a bit.

    not for long with headlines like this one (4.20 / 5) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:49:14 PM EST
    from MSNBC Newsweek:

    Newsweek: All sides of the affirmative-action debate think Obama is on their side -- and they may be right.


    Bravo (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:42:56 PM EST
    Saw that quote somewhere but there was no link, so I did not quite believe it, but awesome for using it.  

    Read further down (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:45:00 PM EST
    Obama's cottage industry of hating hippies.  YESSSSS

    I also recall him writing (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:49:05 PM EST
    that "everyone knows" that Michigan and Florida will be seated.

    Now Hillary is [Lambert's language] for suggesting the very same thing.

    Obama obviously expected (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by sister of ye on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:56:06 PM EST
    MI and FL to be counted, or he wouldn't have had his MI supporter pay for ads pushing the "uncommitted" vote as a vote for him. He must have expected a better showing, because only after Clinton got a clear majority did he push the meme of it being an unfair, sham election.

    Actually, he didn't do that. (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:00:24 PM EST
    He came up with the idea that Dems should go vote for Romney and pushed it vigorously arguing that Michigan wouldn't matter in the Dem race anyway.

    At the time, it seemed like he really believed that February 4th was going to be the final primary day.  Keep in mind that by the time Michigan rolled around we had only had a few primaries and caucuses and mixed results.  I thought it was odd that he continued to insist that Michigan wouldn't matter given the way things were going.

    It was other Obama supporters and Edwards supporters who worked very hard to get the uncommitted vote out because they were smart enough to know that not voting could come back to haunt them in the end.  Had they not done that and only Clinton, Dodd and Kucinich voters showed up to the polls, Obama would be in a very disadvantaged position right now with respect to Michigan.  Lucky for kos' candidate somebody was thinkin'.


    Edwards and Obama weren't smart enough (none / 0) (#122)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:59:18 PM EST
    to realize Michigan would count when they dropped their names off the ballot.

    They took their names off to make themselves look go to Iowa.

    So, they have to deal with the consequences.

    If Edwards were still in the race, I'd be voting for him.... but, you have to recognize political moves backfire.


    I thought Edwards was a fool to take (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:22:17 PM EST
    his name off the ballot.  He was my guy, but I have no problem saying that his Dudley Do-Right schtick was often misapplied.

    Yeah well.... (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:28:02 PM EST
    I agree.

    I remember when Kos wrote that also (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by sonya on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:18:02 PM EST
    I remember a lot of things about the supposed A-list bloggers.

    I remember when they were all atwitter about having lunch with Bill Clinton in his office in Harlem.  They got very defensive when questions were raised as to why no African American or Latino bloggers were present at the lunch, and how disappointing it was that not one of those bloggers seemed to notice or comment on the omission of bloggers of color.   Now these same mofos hate everything Clinton and cry racism on the regular?  Give me a freakin' break.

    Liars and hypocrites, the bunch of them.


    I never had a problem with that lunch (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:26:51 PM EST
    (after all Jeralyn and mcjoan were there).

    Not everything that's political needs to be about race.


    I said it was about hypocrisy (none / 0) (#67)
    by sonya on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:02:23 PM EST
    never mind.

    Kos is Latino (none / 0) (#104)
    by mexboy on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:15:04 PM EST
    HA HA (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:52:15 PM EST
    Who would have thought there'd be a day when one progressive blog would have a "watch" on another because it had gone off the deep end?

    do they not know this stuff is out there? (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:53:13 PM EST
    have they forgotten?  do they not care?
    I suspect option 3.
    welcome to life in the echo chamber.

    And always twirling...twirling! (5.00 / 9) (#9)
    by Fabian on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:53:33 PM EST
    Kos is become a true pundit - ignore whatever I said before, just listen to what I say right. this. minute.

    Mind you, usually it's because they were painfully wrong in their past pronouncements.  With kos, he might have it backwards - I think he was more objective and perceptive in the past, before he put the blinders on.

    Kos - Oct. 10, 2007 (5.00 / 13) (#37)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:18:15 PM EST
    >>>Clinton and Dodd aren't bailing on Michigan voters.
    Pledging to not campaign in Michigan is one thing (as stupid as I might think it is), but slapping Michigan voters in the face by taking their names off the ballot, well, that's another thing entirely. They didn't move the primary up. The politicians did.

    Hillary and Dodd are apparently the only two candidates on the Democratic side unafraid of incurring the wrath of irrational Iowans and Granite Staters desperately hanging on to the final vestiges of their undeserved primary supremacy.>>>


    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:21:49 PM EST
    Oh my. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by vicsan on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:46:22 PM EST
    This is too FUNNY! His hypocrisy knows no bounds! ROTFLMAO!

    i remember that. That was back before Kos (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by derridog on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:58:49 PM EST
    had his blood sucked out by vampires.

    Maybe he had too much (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by mg7505 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:09:51 PM EST

    "Kos is become a true pundit" (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Nadai on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:56:36 PM EST
    Maybe Time can give him a column once Joe Klein leaves.  He'd slot in nicely.

    In ice skating (doubles) (none / 0) (#118)
    by nemo52 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:38:49 PM EST
    they call that t"he twizzle"

    I just don't understand the fuss about Obama (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:54:16 PM EST
    that all these not so past reputed people have become so shamelessly gotten under his sleeves. Why are they pumping him.. He Does have some good points and genuine fans.. but lets give him a one term senate life to see how he fares before we rush to make him the President ... what's the hurry?? oh the moment is now.. cause if he waits another 4years he would loose his charm!!

    He would accumulate (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:57:22 PM EST
    a record that wouldn't be so easy to hide.  For example, he doesn't want his Illinois legislative record viewed too carefully at least in part because in his last two years he was gifted legislation that others had worked to craft and promote.  One legislator, so undercut, complained that he'd moved the ball 99 yards only to be pulled for Obama to get a 1 yard carry and all the credit.

    In his last two years Democrats had control and the majority leader Emil Jones (Chicago) shoveled all the glory Obama's way.  People are truly buying vapor. The Elmer Gantry candidate.

    But for a real look at the phenomenon go read eriposte's offering "The Most Secretive Politicians in History" from 03/30 on www.leftcoaster.com.

    Using excerpts from other sources and eriposte's own commentary the phenomenon of left/right illogical need for what they mistakenly perceive to be perfection.


    It is about political power. (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Oje on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:03:50 PM EST
    For the neophyte-diarists involved in politics for the fist time, their support for Obama seems authentic, if also bemusing. For the many A listers, politics is now a profession, so political power is at stake in their actions and endorsements.* Despite their statements after the 2004 and 2006 losses, the failure of the Dean and Lamont campaigns proved taxing for progressive activists. I think Progressive bloggers (TPM+openleft+dailykos) want very much to stake a winning candidate that appears to come from "beyond the establishment." So, Kos refused to endorse a candidate for many months, then one day, the Minitruth was: dailykos supports Obama, dailykos has always supported Obama. Likewise TPM.  It is intended to give them the air of king-makers.

    In this respect, BTD's posts and reminders of "the way they were" are quite useful. The "Obama bloggers" have gone so far over the top perhaps in part to mask the fact that they did not stake Obama at the outset. The shill factor in their support today makes it easy to forget that they did not make Obama king, try as they might wring their hands until Clinton drops out of the race for no logical reason. The A listers labor on as if the candidate placed in their laps after Edwards dropped out was their chosen one from the outset.

    The conundrum that the A-listers - as political players - will face is that progressives already won significant victories over the "establishment" when Dean became the head of the DNC. In the shadow establishment, Obama is no outsider candidate by any stretch of the imagination. Consequently, when push comes to shove, new establishmentarians like John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, MoveOn, John Lewis, Chris Dodd, Patrick Leahy, Donna Brazile, Howard Dean, etc. - a surprisingly many of whom are the old establishmentarians - will command more respect for Obama's victory. Perhaps these A-listers know this and they are just looking to join the establishment before the media fascination with blogging runs its course.

    *Other A-list bloggers, those who are first and foremost media and cultural critics, have proven to be far less prone to Clinton Derangement Syndrome and Obamamania.


    IIRC (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by kredwyn on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:55:47 PM EST
    In that Jan. post, kos called Clinton a fighter...and pointed out that's what the Dem party needed.

    Not sure what changed.

    Fish in barrel (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:57:38 PM EST
    Kos's defense of Hillary-hating (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:03:59 PM EST
    was the her defense of the DLC was unconscionable, so she didn't deserve fairness.

    Went to the DLC website the other day. There's an op ed from the current head saying Obama is the true DLC candidate.


    How is the traffic at DK? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:00:12 PM EST
    I don't know where to look for the numbers.

    HUGE (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:01:13 PM EST
    Playing to the audience? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:02:28 PM EST
    You have your demographic and you target the punditry.  Simple.  It works for Fox, MSNBC, why not blogs.

    I hear News of the World gets eyeballs too (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:02:59 PM EST
    Then Kos is acting like the good (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:04:57 PM EST
    businessman we know he is.
    This validates my thesis, which is that objectivity in top-tier blogs has gone out the window because the income is not independent of the views expressed. There is no "wall", so if Kos starts saying that Hillary is a great candidate, and the FL and MI delegates counted, his traffic and income will go down.
    You, Jeralyn and Bob Somerby, on the other hand, are not getting rich from blogging, and consequently feel freer to write what you please.

    Objectivity (none / 0) (#71)
    by 1jane on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:14:56 PM EST
    on this site? The readership on top flight blogs is huge. Did anyone post yet that Clinton is down by 10 pts in the Gallup today.

    Does anyone... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:35:13 PM EST
    ...really cover the gyrations of daily tracking polls?  Two weeks ago Obama was down by 7 points.  A month ago he was up by 6 points.  

    Da Polls (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:06:47 PM EST
    I think it was probably NBC/WSJ poll that revealed that both Democrats and Republicans were polled on preference for Democratic Party nominee. Since the results are like the Gallup numbers I'm suspicious that Gallup also fails to make the distinction.

    Far as I'm concerned this makes the polls worthless.

    I feel this is borne out by the fact that Clinton has won so many closed primaries and open primaries in large states with majority Democratio registrations.


    only one? (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:32:38 PM EST
    Well his traffic had jumped 100% (none / 0) (#26)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:06:54 PM EST
    in early year but has now gone back to the normal what it used to be in the early year.

    The graph mid page (none / 0) (#27)
    by athyrio on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:06:56 PM EST
    shows his traffic going down I think

    Look at the 3 year numbers.... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Oje on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:17:14 PM EST
    I didn't read thoroughly, but his numbers in 2008 do not come close to 2006. It is over half down, election cycle to election cycle. The question is, what does that measure and is it a meaningful measure of dailykos.com's reach? Perhaps, alienating Democrats is not as financial lucrative as it seems at first glance. But, like the MSM television and newspapers, at some point the proprietor begins to theorize about how stupid American viewers/readers are and lament the loss of "seriousness" in America.

    NAw (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:19:49 PM EST
    Election time is way up. But, cough, a certain FPer left in 2006, not to name any names.

    lol (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Oje on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:22:09 PM EST
    Just saw the 5 year (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:23:21 PM EST
    and he is WAY down compared to 2006.His 2008 numbers are somewhat below his 3rd quarter 2005, a non-election year.  His decline began before he went off the rails.

    and (none / 0) (#46)
    by Oje on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:24:55 PM EST
    you may be right. Talkleft's numbers are down also 2006 to 2008 (but not in the 3-month period to the extent that dailykos and TPM numbers are). It seems to be something in how their metrics are recorded, not actual reads or something. Otherwise, I do not see how the readership could be so down at the A blogs.

    because they alienate clinton (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by isaac on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:39:09 PM EST
    supporters.  blogs i no longer even browse: kos, americablog, tpm.  i cant watch coundown anymore, but i always sort of knew keith was the yin to billo's yang, the reverse side of the coin, as it were

    Seems like just yesterday (none / 0) (#66)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:01:59 PM EST

    Just as I predicted! (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:09:28 PM EST
    Alos, plug in TPM in the search (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Oje on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:21:49 PM EST
    At the height of this historic and extraordinary election, TPM does not have the reach or the page views that it did 2 years ago during the 2006 election. It would be nice to know if those numbers are an accurate reflection of readership... I find it fascinating that the top tier progressive blogs are in decline due to Clinton Derangement Syndrome and Obamamania....

    MI (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:01:25 PM EST
    Michigan, speaking only for me, Hillary should get all the votes cause she was the most strategic.  Kos is right.  Unlike the DNC she planned for the worst case scenario.  Indicates to me great judgement.  Also used it when it mattered.

    She needs to start playing hardball... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:12:44 PM EST
    ...and threaten to run as independent if they don't seat/revote Michigan and Florida.

    I think this is a horrible idea (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:28:09 PM EST
    and one that Sen. Clinton would never entertain. She is a loyal Dem. and wants to work from inside the system. For better or worse, she's not a flame-thrower.

    Clinton wouldn't, but Obama would (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by pluege on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:46:37 PM EST
    I agree Clinton would never run as an independent because she is dem through and through. I would  never say the same about the new dem darling Obama. He would certainly threaten an independent run if he doesn't get his way and I would not be surprised if he did it.

    Wow (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by Tiparillo on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:28:03 PM EST
    Based on what - your own fevered imagination?  

    Nice fact free smear.


    It's been rumored... (none / 0) (#92)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:41:27 PM EST
    ...beyond just this site.  It's not a stretch to make that speculation given his statements that a) he will not run again and b) he will not run as a VP...

    Rumors? Rumors? (none / 0) (#97)
    by Tiparillo on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:54:22 PM EST
    Like that rumor that he was a Muslim?


    Based on what you point to, I would conclude that he would settle for a nice, long Senate career....like so many Senators but hey that's me.  YMMV.


    Indeed... (none / 0) (#101)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:04:39 PM EST
    ...that's just you.  No clue why you take offense to a differing opinion.

    I'm not saying she SHOULD... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:24:45 PM EST
    ...I'm saying she should have her surrogates float the idea, if Michigan and Florida are not counted.

    Just like his mentor (none / 0) (#109)
    by Iphie on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:48:44 PM EST

    Add the Archie Bunker states to that list (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Salt on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:18:07 PM EST
    ...................................The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates.

    I despise that "Archie Bunker" meme. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Joelarama on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:02:14 PM EST
    It alienates and demeans an entire segment of the party, and it is not remotely accurate.  

    Very destructive.


    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by nemo52 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:42:24 PM EST
    I fit the latte -drinking (or at least good coffee-drinking), well-educated (PHD in English), stereotype of the Obama voter.  But perhaps my being a woman, over 50, and a lifelong feminist affects the demographics.  Things ain't simple, kids.

    I fit the alleged profile of an Obama voter, (none / 0) (#135)
    by Joelarama on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:22:32 PM EST
    but I support Hillary (very similar to you).

    Except, I'm a gay man, and in my experience that group seems to be going disproportionately for Hillary.

    The Archie Bunker thing is something altogether insidious than your examples or mine.  It's dogwhistle for "racist."  No getting around it.


    Kudos to BTD (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by vj on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:48:25 PM EST
    For a string of truth-telling posts today.  

    In honor of Cesar Chavez birthday, (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:11:17 PM EST
    which, may I add, is a state holiday in CA.  

    Sí, se puede (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:15:16 PM EST
    El pueblo unido jamás será vencido

    ("The people united will never be defeated")


    Thank you, CA taxpayer. (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:34:03 PM EST
    BTD, Speaking for me too (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Key on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:33:47 PM EST
    On this post, you're speaking for me too.  Speaking for a lot of us I imagine.  I've just about stopped looking at dailykos given Markos' utter hypocrisy on the whole Obama/Clinton topic.

    I suppose I should take the site out of my RSS reader so his stats won't include me any more....

    Chelsea ... the new target.. the new low for MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:50:49 PM EST
    Going after Chelsea is the new low and double standards for MSNBC and Chris Mathews..
    When the media could not attack Hillary enough .. they are now targeting Chelsea with the Lewinsky's question.. MSNBC take... "good question" "valid questions..", "students will keep pressing her" "she should come with answers.." "her answer would not do", "THAT QUESTION IS EVERYONE'S BUSINESS", !!  

    I turned off that crap. That (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:49:06 PM EST
    was lower than low. Their reasoning: H claims experience re: marriage to Prez so Prez impeached because of ML therfore: H and Chelsea have to answer questions about ML! So they better come up with some answers instead of saying none of your biz. Tweety and his "guests" have no human decency whatsoever. He is the biggest sleaze on tv.

    All I can say is that (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by nemo52 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:45:39 PM EST
    watching the videos, Chelsea is a class act.

    if you tune in to msnbc (obama network) (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by joyce1 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:48:05 PM EST
    from early morning till 11 pm, it's as if you're watching the same show over and over again, Clinton bashing all the time, obama supporter pundits only. Olbermann can no longer compare himself to Ed Murrow, he and tweety are insane. I can no longer stand these guys, have quit Olb. three weeks ago. The only one I watch these nights is Gregory, but I can't stand Rachel Maddow so I don't know.......

    That is a new low (none / 0) (#107)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:37:08 PM EST
    even for the scumbags at msnbc.  tweety has gone completely over the edge.

    I reiterate myself (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by tarheel74 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:17:30 PM EST
    Do I really care what Kos says? No. Is he credible? No. Has he turned his site into an echo-chamber and a paranoid freak-show? Yes. Does he push any unfounded slanderous smear on Sen. Clinton without any objectivity and analysis? Yes he does.
    So why discuss him? Why give him any credence?

    WHAT (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:15:57 PM EST
    voterin2008 you should look a little more closely at the details.

    Do you have the slightest clue about what right and left actually mean?

    If you think that Obama is some sort of progressive hero then I'm afraid you're laboring under a terrible misapprehension. Try examining the background of his Milton Friedman Memorial Economics team of Cutler, Goolsbee and Liebman. And his support of Blackwater, etc.  It goes on and on.

    Obama's is to the political right of Clinton in most policy areas.

    I was an Edwards supporter because of his progressive agenda.  When he dropped out of the race I went with Clinton as the more progressive of the two remaining candidates.

    Speaking of double standards (1.00 / 0) (#10)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:53:46 PM EST
    A little matter of credibility -

    You've often described yourself as a "tepid Obama supporter".

    I've just done a week analysis of your postings, and those critical of Obama and his supporters, or critical of Clinton and her supporters.

    It's not close.

    You consistently post critical commentaries of Obama and his spokesman, while only rarely posting critical commentaries of Clinton and her supporters.

    As one commentator put it, you seem a bit of a "frienemy".  Or, "with friends like these, who needs enemies".

    The thing I would like to point out (not that you will listen to me), is that, you have a certain brand, BTD, that will last after this election.  It's one thing to be a Clinton supporter, or to be a Clinton disliker, and an Obama hater, but at least be honest.  It effects your credibility, in the long run - and the damage done to that credibility outlasts this election.  Seems like a short-term strategy for you.

    But for what it's worth, I always liked you at the big orange satan.  Your passionate voice.  But at this point, with this dishonest pose of being an Obama supporter, in the future, how can someone like myself trust your posts, with this "double standard" in play?

    Heh (5.00 / 12) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:54:48 PM EST
    You not getting enough Obama love in the blogs? I need to join the Movement too?

    consider it keeping you honest. You certainly need it.


    Well, again, didn't expect you to agree (none / 0) (#30)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:10:22 PM EST
    But I thought I would offer my perspective.

    AS if I did not know your persepctive already (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:13:49 PM EST
    I know that you respond quickly (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:22:10 PM EST
    to 1000 commenters coming at you, but, if I was simply an "Obama supporter", and unthinking, I wouldn't even be taking your argument about popular vote being an important secondary choice seriously, I would just dismiss it.  But I do take it seriously.

    I also would stop agreeing with you, with regarding to revoting - but I'd love to get a revote, at least in Michigan, where it could be done.

    So while you can predict what I say with 80% accuracy, it isn't 100% yet!



    As Christiane said: (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by ghost2 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:54:36 PM EST
    Objectivity doesn't mean treating all sides equally. It means giving each side a hearing.

    Fairness is also important. Presenting the (none / 0) (#114)
    by Joelarama on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:04:48 PM EST
    facts, if one cannot always get to the truth, of the matter.

    Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:55:28 PM EST
    I think it is more important to stand on (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:56:37 PM EST
    principles rather than twist your principles to suit your biasness.. I don't see that here at TalkLeft where as on other blogs like dkos.. it is rampant.. you are for votes but not for MI/FL.. that kind of principled stand is more important than taking sides of the candidates.. and I see that here!!

    BTW (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:57:10 PM EST
    I had a blogging brand long before this contest.

    That brand says I say what I think.

    I continue to live up to that brand.

    No sacred cows. EVER.


    I agree you have that brand (none / 0) (#28)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:08:46 PM EST
    and you have that reputation -

    This is why the contradiction between what you say - tepid Obama supporter - and what you do - post after post of criticism of Obama and supporters - is so jarring.

    Now, clearly this doesn't apply to "have the votes!" because that is a position, that doesn't affect parties.  

    But even when correcting for the criticism of Obama for dragging his feet in supporting revotes, the bias is your posting seems apparent.


    Did it ever occur to you (5.00 / 8) (#38)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:19:20 PM EST
    BTD wants Obama to win in both the Primary and the GE, and that the behavior of Obama supporters, and Obama sometimes himself, is making the second goal less accessible.

    That is your view (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:21:23 PM EST
    I do not think you are accurate in what you write.

    Depends on how you define things (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:34:35 PM EST
    Well, I'm relatively new here so take me with a grain of salt. But, it seems to me that BTD's "brand" is honesty, exposure of hypocrisy, and criticism where it is deserved (i.e., of late, the contempt for clinton and her supporters and the issue of voting legitimacy).

    Anyway, that's why I like it here. I suppose if his "brand" was support for a certain candidate regardless of their behavior I wouldn't like it - there's plenty of other places for that.

    So I don't see any inherent contradiction between his tepid support for Obama and his criticism where criticism is due. I also like criticism of Clinton and everyone else where it is due. Maybe it's temperament - I can't understand when people are unable to hear/see problems with issues or candidates just because they are supporting them for the nomination.


    The free ride (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:33:17 PM EST
    by the media or by the blogosphere is the worst thing that has happened to Obama.

    Part of the primary process is to vet the Dem candidate.

    The GOP will not be as gentle.


    There will probably come a day (none / 0) (#45)
    by jes on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:23:49 PM EST
    when BTD will encourage all his avid readers to do the right thing. If that day comes, he will have much more credibility than all the A-list hypocrisy to come about unity. You should thank him.

    That's a fair point (none / 0) (#51)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:29:23 PM EST
    In his possible influence on uniting us again.  

    Still (again, only my opinion) the contradiction between "tepid Obama supporter" and the constant string of posts critical of Obama, for me at least, destroys credibility.


    For BTD, support does not equal cheerleading (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:30:37 PM EST
    Why on earth (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:43:15 PM EST
    do you demand that a line be followed to the exclusion honest commentary?

    I've found this site's refreshing honesty a rarity among LOC sites in recent months.  I don't care so much who a blogger supports as long as there is honest commentary.

    If there is reason to criticize Obama then so be it.

    There's a LOT to criticize IMO.

    There is also a major problem with CDS on many LOC blogs that's truly outrageous, shamefully dishonest and ultimately self-defeating.


    If all the blogs had taken BTD's position (4.90 / 10) (#54)
    by jes on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:35:01 PM EST
    we would be much more likely to have two Fighting Dems dueling it out. I blame the blogosphere for cheerleading rather than pushing for better Democratic positions.

    Absolutely positively (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Burned on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:18:19 PM EST
    Well said.

    BTD the uniter (none / 0) (#88)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:35:48 PM EST
    Uniting all 200 readers of TalkLeft.  That seems silly.

    Actually over 20,000 (none / 0) (#98)
    by jcsf on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:55:04 PM EST
    a day, according to SiteMeter.  Although I'm sure, that, with the constant commenting, there are enough daily repeat visitors, that this number may be halved.

    Does sitemeter measure (none / 0) (#130)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:27:31 PM EST
    for different IP addresses? It would be interesting to know what Jeralyn's logs say about unique IP address visits per day.

    seems perfectly... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:44:29 PM EST
    ...reasonable to believe he'll win the nomination and carry the GE but loathe his tactics.  I'd fall into that camp as well.

    The notion that there is one true Democrat and all others doom us seems to be the naive proposition foisted by many in the Obama camp.  In reality Clinton would be a fine steward of our government.  It's a shame some seem to think she's a fate worse than McCain.


    and you still call him a friend Whoa!! (none / 0) (#3)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:43:36 PM EST
    Talk Left friend Kos writes today:


    Both Jeralyn and Armando (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:22:16 PM EST
    call Markos a friend and that's the way it should be.

    I have friends that are - gasp - Republicans...one of them forwarded some junk just today with all sorts of derogatory Clinton and Obama fake bumper stickers.

    Friendships survive elections


    Arrrrrghhhh (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:16:26 PM EST
    Kos is honorable.

    So are they all honorable men ... (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by badger on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:26:46 PM EST
    O Judgment, (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Fabian on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:23:39 PM EST
    O Judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts,
    And men have lost their reason!

    The Link


    Kos most especially (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:28:54 PM EST
    He does the best he can.

    The Best He Can (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by Nadai on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:08:11 PM EST
    And isn't that a damning indictment.

    Sorry.  I still haven't forgiven him for the Pie War, let alone this primary season.


    I should've added a /sacrcasm tag (none / 0) (#56)
    by badger on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:40:32 PM EST
    Right. (none / 0) (#120)
    by nemo52 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:44:18 PM EST
    Quoth Mark Antony.

    I think it was Bill Clinton that once said that (none / 0) (#78)
    by athyrio on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:21:08 PM EST
    Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line.....

    To what logical extreme... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:26:46 PM EST
    ... are you willing to go to give Obama the nomination? What if we didn't count 19 states, would you give Obama the nomination without counting the votes from 19 states?

    Give? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Tiparillo on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:47:03 PM EST
    Who said I wanted to give him anything?  

    I want neither Clinton nor Obama to be given anything - I want them to earn it.  And so far he has the lead.  Deal with it.  

    Clinton's MI & Fl gambit is all about her and has nothing to do with voters.  Don't insult me claiming otherwise.


    Not to insult you but (none / 0) (#111)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:52:50 PM EST
    voters are just the means to the end in any political contest.

    OK... whatever vocabulary you want to use... (none / 0) (#125)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:10:09 PM EST
    Hypothetically, if Obama received the Democratic nomination without 19 states voting because they had broken the rules, would consider that a legitimate outcome?

    Not by Michigan and Florida voters (none / 0) (#126)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:15:26 PM EST
    be one thing if we were talking just Florida.

    Michigan is a must win state. And it's showing a preference for red.


    This coming from the guy (none / 0) (#103)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:14:34 PM EST
    that says "Rumors?  Rumors?  Like the rumors he was a Muslim?"