Ugh.

Here we go......

You failed to point out that Jeff Zeleny was being extremely rude by interrupting Obama at his campaign event, where Obama was trying to greet and talk to actual South Carolina voters, not New York Times reporters.

agreed. it seems silly.

anonymous, I wasn't there. I can only go by the ABC account.

Meanwhile, Hillary cackles. She must be loving it. Defiant, pulling no punches, and schooling all takers. You go, girl!

Obama is coming unglued and it is a joy to watch. He should exit the race before he loses what's left of his reputation.

He has alienated the rank and file of the Democratic Party and he will not win a single closed primary. He may be popular with independents and moderate Republicans but to the progressive left he is as popular as Ronald Reagan.

just clarified that he was meeting with supporters at the time. it is an important detail.

It's really sad how these pundits and news organizations hover and pick every non-position info-bite and grow it into hurricane.

I voted for Clinton, twice. Unfortunately, his wife is a Washington hack who hides behind her husband and hopefully will lose to the Republican challenger.

I really hope Obama or Edwards has something up his sleeve - like Bill's further infidelities or Hillary's hidden agenda. But it looks like Edwards is beginning to brown nose Billary already.

I hope the world prays for our soul - we will need it.

What is Bill doing in SC
Going to a Black coffee shop and cry.

Clintons - what liars and cheap slimy politicians

"It’s 2 minutes to midnight for Obama. Black voters might help him win the upcoming South Carolina primary. But the clock is running out on this slimy pol."

..that sounds like wishful thinking from a product of inbreeding.

Again I say smell the bacon frying in the Clinton kitchen...it's Obama bacon.

"Again I say smell the bacon frying in the Clinton kitchen...it's Obama bacon."

Again.. *Yawn*

What's funny is no one is thinking about Jeff's original question. I mean he might as well had said, "are you letting President Clinton punk you?". Is that what's passing for legitimate questions these days?

What did he think the answer would be? Yes? If folks want to know what irks folks about media coverage it's this crap. And the fact that it's being spread around the internets just insures we'll have more of this bullshit in the future.

Tapper, people who make fun of other people's names are third-grade level morons.

pacc, the slimy politicians in this race are Bill and Hillary Clinton.

If Clintons lips were a zipper,
he'd need to close it before he makes a great big mess.

"I did not have sex with that woman"
while wagging his finger.

Lets see a reporter with any balls go after him on that and try to finally get an answer.

This is the zipper - I mean mouthpiece of the Hill Bill y campaign.

Bill Clinton is disgusting

And anyone who doesn't mind being lied to like that has no self respect.

And all you award winning spellers out there - go screw yourselves.

facta, actually, you are wrong. I am a very progressive Democrat, and I love Obama, as does every progressive Democrat I know. See, the issue here is, there are educated Democrats, who are smart enough to research candidates, use facts, and think critically (for instance, smart people are actually able to understand Obama's comments in their proper context, and not in the simplistic kneejerk framing that the Clintons like to try to spread), and then there are dumbass Democrats who follow blindly, can't understand simple conceptual arguments that intellectuals make, don't pay any attention to facts, don't know their own candidate or the people they attack, and thus come off as raving hypocrites/idiots.

Basically your facts are, as usual for Hillbots, fallacious. Obama's reputation isn't sinking faster than the Titanic, Hillary and Bill's are if anyones. You can made believe that it is reversed, but that isn't going to make it any more true. If you actually consider yourself a progressive Democrat, it gives me even more reason to switch my identification to Independent (left of Democrats), because that would mean that even the best portion of the party is contaminated with unthinking automatons. Anyone who thinks Hillary is truly progressive is not progressive. Anyone who thinks that Hillary is running to the left of Obama, is not intelligent.

I liked it when Bill lied to me because
I am a spelling robot

Barack Obama is Asked an Inane Question and Responds as Most People Would.

wow, this is really newsworthy. thanks Greg, for bringing this to our attention.

This site becomes more ridiculous by the moment. You so called Obama supporters who won't vote for Hillary if she is the nominee....well I assume you are enjoying the Bush years....and want more of them. It is ironic because a lot of the people on this site are informed...they have the information...but just interpret it in a crazy way. It is unfortunate because this country needs a smart, experienced president...who will really make change. We all know who that is ....even if you don't like her personality. So get real and support Hillary!!!!

Jaz you are committing the gravest sin in the cult of Obamania, you are talking facts.

The way things are going the Obabots will turn out to be the very last brave band of Bushit supporters. So sad.

I am just trying to get to the bottom of all the foolishness.
I admit I am not the brightest person in the world as is evident by my postings -
but I just can't bring myself to support
one of those.

some one is pretending that I read the newspaper.
Not fair
I am proud to be from the south and have replaced Bills cigar with the republican flag
And I'm prroud of it (sic)
And it makes me feel good
liek Strom Thurmond (sic) should

Jenny

Please understand a simple fact
WE dont like the slimy corrupt politics of the Clintons.
And never will vote for them
If the idiotic Democratic party wants to nominate a sure loser
It is not my fault

Tapper

you sound like a goddamn fool

cminmd => Actually. The whole Caucus event is undemocratic. Forcing people to disclose who they choose is not democratic. Period. That's not Hillary's fault but the the DNC's fault.

Worse still, was the attempt to make some votes have "more value" than others --> As is the case in Nevada.

Sorry, but if you were really a democrat, in the politicial, non-party sense, you would understand why primaries would make ALL these issue null and void.

There is not much difference in the senate records of hillary and obama --> go do the research.

There is a big difference between hillary/obama and McCain..and big one.

So I'm absolutely 100% sure that there are many "empty threats" going around.

Tym...

Who is WE???? I know one thing...this country is in a mess after the Bush era...and we need to get the best possible person into the White House. Get informed and figure out who that person is...and who will win in 2008. The rest of this stuff is garbage....and will (and is) sinking this country into the world sewer. I think the person is Hillary...if you don't give me some real substantive reasons why...

Vote for Monica Lewinsy's boyfriend's wife.

Modern feminist First woman -blah blah
With a husband guilty in a 850,000 dollar sexual harassment suit

Will somebody tell me how the above fit together. I just cant put the pieces together

Jenny, idiots who are trying to make Hillary our nominee when McCain is going to be the Republican nominee are the ones who must love Republican rule, because it will be Hillary being our nominee, not some disgusted Democrats staying home, that hands the election to the Republicans.

Last poll: McCain 51%, Hillary 39%

Also, do you know why all the red state Dems are endorsing Obama? It isn't because he is moderate or Republican, it is because THEY KNOW IF HILLARY IS ON THE BALLOT ALL DEMOCRATS RUNNING IN THEIR STATES ARE SCREWED!!!

WAKE THE HELL UP PEOPLE!!!

Tym...

This is so ridiculous and irrelevant...I think you should vote for Huckabee...he sounds more like your candidate. I feel bad that I am the one to break this to you...but Obama has lots of questionable issues in his closet...and the Republicans are going to make mincemeat out of him.

colonwowwow wrote on January 22, 2008 7:29 PM:

"I liked it when Bill lied to me because
I am a spelling robot"

That's c-o-l-o-n-p-o-w-w-o-w.

Jenny

I might vote for McCain but never Huckabee

He is from Arkansas like the corrupt Clintons

Jenny, I am in full agreement.
Everyone knows the Clinton record. It's a none issue now. The media are even bored.

Obama, has alot of stories that can "blow up" in his face. Rezko being one of them.

A better question is... If Obama has problems with 2 Clintons... just how will he fair against the ENTIRE republican party I have no clue.

What's worse is his present voting could come across as indecisiveness.

If you want a morale correct leader, you vote for Huckabee, however, praying to God isn't gonna save the American economy, or bring the troops home.

It's pretty obvious what's happening here, vis a vis the media coverage.

The Clintons have told the MSM that if they attack Hillary in any way, they will receive no access during her term.

Let's follow along:

1. Attack Obama with half-truths and outright lies until he hits back.
2. Follow with an accusation that Obama is "frustrated."
3. Get a reporter to ask Obama such an inane question that he gets pissed, thus seeming "frustrated."

And, of course, the MSM bites hook, line and sinker. Is there any larger group of star f---ers than political journalists?

I always questioned reasonable republicans who voted for candidates with no integrity just out of party loyalty. So I don't question Tym - I think we all need to vote our conscience and if we elect someone who has to be dishonest to win the nomination - it's OK not to support her in the general. John McCain with a democratic congress might in fact be a better way for the country to go. I can’t say that about Romney, Guiliani or Huckabee, but I do feel that about John McCain. It’s OK to not support the party if the candidate lacks integrity.

rg

Agree McCain with a Democratic congress is so much better than any Clinton restoration

Jaz...
Obama has gotten a pass in the media...this round...but that will not last for long. The Rezko issues are brewing and are really serious. There are lots of other issues. The facts are that Hillary has the most experience...she has great plans (including universal health care) and she knows (actually is expert) dealing with the republicans. Obama is a novice and will fall flat on his face. I think all of us should get on the Hillary bandwagon....and get a dem who will make all of our lives better elected. Obama changed his platform from being for hope and bringing people together and turned it into a devisive argument amongst the dems. This is just going to guarantee another 4 years of a republican neocan....Get real....

Just ANOTHER reason to vote for Ron Paul!

Were you baffled when smart republicans supported the very stupid Bush? - that baffled me. If party loyalty mattered at all to the Clintons, Bill would have listened to Kennedy and Emanual. Honest democrats may not want to regret their vote the way smart republicans now do. Again - it matters what the option is - but McCain with a dem congress is a reasonable solution. Or - Clinton raising her integrity level in time not to alienate so many of us beyond repair.

Jenny,

There is nothing to the Rezko accusations. It's been debunked several times. Google Obama and Rezko (and click on an actual newspaper Web site) and see for yourself. Do you homework before you come on here and try to play Gotcha! Do you honestly think if Hillary had anything on him she wouldn't have released it by now? Jeebus, do you even think before you type out the latest Hillary talking point?

jenny

care to back up your bluff on rezko?

Tym,

There are many informed voters out there....and I am sure you are one of them....it just depends on how smart you are to interpret the information....NOT SURE...if you are???? In any case...Hillary is the best candidate...has the best policies...can pay for them and can really make a change. Sorry you don't like her personally...but that doesn't mean anything....

It is absolutely ridiculous that many of you people are willing to vote for a Repiglican if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee. It is very telling, actually. One has to wonders if these so called "Obama supporters" aren't really Repiglicans themselves. Ever wonder why the Republicans are so "pro-Obama" all of the sudden? They fear a Clinton nomination. They will LOSE against the Clinton artillery and they know it. Now, unless you want perpetual war, more environmental degradation, no accountability, and rampant incompetency, vote for Mr. "100 more years in Iraq McCain", or "9/11 Giulliani", or even worse; "The U.S. Constitition should reflect Christian Principles Huckabee".

Support ANY Democratic nominee. And this is from an Edwards supporter (voted for Edwards in the Florida EARLY VOTING Primary, however "meaningless" it is).

Tapper:

"I admit I am not the brightest person in the world as is evident by my postings -"

First thing you've written that I agree with, you spastic fool.

"But after watching Bill Clinton lower himself to the point of smearing and distorting the record of one of the brightest Democratic hopes in decades, after watching Hillary Clinton gleefully, repeatedly lie and misrepresent Barack Obama's record during last night's South Carolina debate, I simply cannot support her candidacy, even if she eventually gains the Democratic nomination."

I totally agree. Hillary doesn't need to win this way. The biggest problem the Democratic Party has today is the lack of young and middle-aged stars to run for office. If nothing else, Obama was bringing some new people into the party.

With Bill and Hill it's not about this country. It's about them. It's about old scores. They are so blinded by ambition they can't even tell that Obama is not an old score. He could be the future and if he isn't one of those young people who are likely to stay home in November after months of this slime, could have been the future.

Anonymous89, as you've characterized McCain as "perpetual war", I'll ask the same question of you that I asked Jane in another thread (with no answer)

What is the difference between McCain and Hillary Clinton's "war" records. As near as I can tell, they are indentical.

Or were you making a case for another candidate that didn't vote for the Iraq war and isn't interested in looking adversarial with Iran.

specifically the absurd focus on hyper poll-tested nonsolutions like the legendary V-chip

The real tragedy of the Clinton administration was trying to govern by non-stop polling, polling that was invariably carried out in right-wing frames.

I do wonder - those of you who question us for our lack of blind loyalty to the democratic party - do you not see the irony in Bill Clinton's refusal to be loyal to us? To put his own opinion of who should win above the good of the party? Isn't he doing the same thing? - but he's the leader of our party. Why is that OK, but us not being sure we can support a candidate we find so lacking in the qualities we want in a president not OK? Do you have any solution to this - to how completely she and her husband damaging are the party? How they don't care about alienating so many that they put the general election at risk. You may think we're wrong - but there are so many of us who are getting so very turned off.

Evan,

Great post. You summed up my feelings exactly.

Anonymous88-

Yes, both McCain and Hillary voted for the war authorization. They both voted for repeated war funds. I get that! But I don't see Hillary arguing that we should have PERMANENT troop presence in Iraq, permanent military bases, nor do I see her pushing for Bush's "U.S. government fusion with the Iraqi Parliament" stressing unconditional support and presence to the corrupt Iraqi government while seeking to avoid any approval from the U.S. Congress. McCain, on the other hand, does not MIND if our soldiers continue to die in Iraq. Supports permanent troop presence and military bases and has always been an advocate for this surge. Moreover, he suggested that Bush should have sent more than 20,000 troops during the surge. What do you think he'd do if elected POTUS? At-least with Hillary there's accountability. She mentioned she will end the war, end combat operations "responsibly", but maintain troops that work in non-combat operations, charities, civilian-sponsored programs, etc. Although I favor a COMPLETE withdrawal, I think she fares better than your "typical" GOP candidate...

Simple solution to permanently shut up all the Hillbots here.
Just go and switch your registration to Independent, like I will do.

No more telling me I have to support the Democratic nominee.
Tell them you are no longer joining the low education, poorly informed voters that are Hillary's base.

All polls agree with the above staement

Greg, you are everything that's wrong with this country.

Let's see.

Obama, through his campaign surrogates and supporters mischaracterize Hillary's MLK/LBJ statement to the black community, and mischaracterize her emotional moment at a New Hampshire primary = NOT SMEARS

Hillary, through her big dog surrogate, Bill, mischaracterizes Obama's statement because he frames Obama's exact words to fit a HRC campaign narrative = SMEAR

Got it.

What was that experience thing about again?

Thanks for getting a link to the video. why couldn't Greg get that up again? I'm sure Fox doesn't allow links to their site?

Thank you for the intelligent comments on TPM... lets try to ratchet down the filth.

Oh, now I understand colonpowwow, in order to be a loyal democrat we have to blindly follow your fearless leader. Oh, ok, if we question or wonder or debate about whether she is good for the country let alone good for the democratic party, then we are obviously mistaken and anti-american and commies and sexist and hillary-haters and whatever. Oh, I get it now, we should just all be blind sheep and get in line with the clinton personality cult and follow your fearless leader. Well, that sounds so republican, but since I don't want to be holier than thou or considered anti-american, I will . . . nope can't do it. I cannot blindly follow your fearless leader who has no ethics and is a pathological liar. Sorry.

tym wrote on January 22, 2008 9:10 PM:

"Simple solution to permanently shut up all the Hillbots here.
Just go and switch your registration to Independent, like I will do.

"No more telling me I have to support the Democratic nominee.
"Tell them you are no longer joining the low education, poorly informed voters that are Hillary's base.

"All polls agree with the above staement"

The operative word in your post is the first one.

The hints from Obama and Clyburne that blacks may get depressed and stay home if they are disappointed in this primary sound to me like Obama wants the number two slot on a Clinton ticket. If so, expect Obama to tone it down again after playing up to the home crowd in SC. If he comes on nasty in the next two debates, I'm all wet.

Jenny:

Take heart. Just read the most recent posts by tym and Michael A., and consider the source(s).

Most Democrats will have no trouble lining up behind the nominee, whoever she is ;-)

If they could learn to love the Iraq Authorization ticket of Kerry/Edwards and almost get those two stiffs elected - think how much easier it will be with Hillary or Obama!

Obama in 2016!

The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment was a mistake, Changenow.

Now, why did Obama continue to fund the war if he GENUINELY opposed it from the beginning? It seems that Clinton and Obama are only different through certain technicalities.

Vote Edwards First.

Although HRC is better than any GOP smuck.

Can I point out one simple thing, here?

Just months ago, when no one except his supporters felt that Obama had a chance, everyone at least knew him to be a candidate who wanted unity, change and an end to the partisanship in Washington.

Just months ago, when everyone felt Hillary Clinton was the front-runner, people worried that perhaps Hillary's high negatives would be a factor, because she wasn't a candidate who represented unity, change and an end to the partisanship in Washington.

What has changed, except for the fact that everyone now feels that Obama has a chance?

Or, put in a simpler way: All of us already knew how divisive Hillary could be. But here it is, the beginning of primary season, and she's already dividing her own party. Mercy on us all come November.

Instead of trying to destroy Obama, cheapshot him to death and drive up his negatives as high as hers, the Clinton campaign needs to tell us why we should vote for her.

She needs to explain The Clinton's rightwing record of the 90's. She needs to disavow the DLC tactics of triangulation. She needs to apologize for her war record and faulty judgment time and time again. She needs to fire the pollsters that run her campaign and will run her administration.

Clinton Supporters, I understand the politics of kneecapping Obama. But you fail to understand I don't have to vote for the kneecapper. I don't need Hillary Clinton to win. She needs me to win.

I know many of you assume that we'll just come around when she wins the nomination and Obama tepidly and/or reluctantly endorses her but it's not Obama we're invested in - it's the offer of a political sea change we're reaching for. It's the possibility of a new political realignment we're hoping against hope for. It's the potential of a real progressive running from the confidence of his progressiveness instead of the fear of being perceived as too liberal. It's the audacity of a Democrat running in all 50 states, asking ALL Americans to vote for him, looking for a sweep instead of a contested Ohio-Florida outcome. It's the very real chance of an inspiring leader looking to lead us instead of following along with the polls.

Is all that probable with Obama? Probably not, but it's possible. And that's so much more than what a Hillary Clinton presidency offers.

I will be supporting Edwards on 2/5. I'd prefer Feingold.

Feingold On Edwards

Wow. I notice that in the time it took me to write my long, dejected plea for a more elevated tone, the tone of the dicussion abruptly elevated a bit all by itself.

That's kind of encouraging.

Or maybe the dung flinging monkeys are just catching their breath.

Just watched the video of this. What am I missing? It's innocuous stuff.

Calm down, y'all.

I just watched the video.

This is a non-story.

Good night everyone.

John Kerry comments on the lies:

http://acropolisreview.com/2008/01/john-kerry-on-lies.html

"They have lied and bamboozled their way back to the front of the race."

No, working-class Democrats, the kind you secretly hate, have decided that she is the best candidate. I know you can't fathom the thought that someone is smarter than you, but it's the truth.

STOP THE HATE. ONE MORE TIME. STOP THE HATE. IF OBAMA CAN'T HANDLE HILLARY'S ATTACKS ON HIS RECORD, DO YOU THINK HE HANDLE THE REPUBLICANS?

Democrats, on the most part, love the Clintons. Don't be blinded by your disappointment. The hate against Hillary on this site is sickening. It's as if people don't believe that Democrats have the right to chose their nominee. Actually, we do have that right and the voters are speaking. I have heard Hillary described here in the worst right-wing talking points. Just. Stop. Already. Obama is no saint, and Hillary is pointing that out. He's a politician who has made political decisions. I get it. Voting present is one of them. That's OK. And it's OK to offer criticism of that. I've heard people call Mark Penn anti-Union, without any proof. I've read about Monica Lewinsky here, as if any cares. I've read about 500 times that there's no way you could vote for Hillary. You know what? Then don't. Change your registration. Obama's been encouraging it. Do whatever you have to do to calm yourself down. The Democrats are in the process of voting as a party. You will either abide by the voters' choice or you won't. But enough with the bile, the hatred, and the smears. Enough, enough, enough. If Obama can't beat Hillary, then he certainly can't beat a Republican.

Given Obama's lie about the DNC approving his Florida-impacting cable TV adds, it is hilarious watching him accuse the Clinton's of lying!

And I see an Obama supporter on a TPM thread is making the argument that Obama is like Bush and therefore more electable.

Guffawwwww!

I've been saying all along that Obama and his supporters are like Bush and his supporters, but is that how you really want to win, by mimicking George W. Bush?

Well, for someone who praises Reagan, I guess that's not such a stretch!

BTW, I love the same commenters argument that Obama will be the best candidate because he will be lovable on the stage and not combative against his GOP opponent, supposedly like Bush, when it was progressives themselves who absolutely excoriated Gore for being a pansy in the debates and on the campaign trail - so, were progressives lying then or are they lying now or are they just trying to rationalize their support for Obama on this issue like they have by pretending that Obama appeals to moderate independents and Republicans.

BluePuppy,

No hate here for working-class Dems. In fact I phone bank for Obama at the SEIU building here in Wisconsin. I would like to take issue with two points in your post though.

1) Obama is no saint, and Hillary is pointing that out.

I agree with the first part. He's no saint. That doesn't mean he is as corrupt at she is though. And she isn't "pointing that out" so much as she is either misrepresenting his record or just muddying the water. She doesn't play it straight, and I think people who disagree with her resent that.

2) If Obama can't beat Hillary, then he certainly can't beat a Republican.

Here's the frustration. Polls consistently show that Obama is a better general election candidate than Dem primary candidate. So while it is entirely within our rights as a party to nominate HRC, she is almost certainly less electable. So ironically, it may be that he can beat a Republican but not Hillary.

But hey, we are all free to vote as we wish, no question about that. I just hope we do it with our eyes open.

Thanks for your mostly magnanimous post. The problem is this line: "That doesn't mean he is as corrupt at she is though."

Are actually calling a serious contender from our party corrupt? You think that's OK? We're talking about a United States Senator, an accomplished woman, an incredibly dedicated progressive. What gives you the right to call her corrupt? Can you not hear the hyperbole in your own head? This is precisely the name-calling, the hateful charges which is making some Democrats shut down their comments section. Talk about Hillary's health care plan, talk about her plans to invest in green energy, talk about life-long commitment to women's rights and civil rights. But enough with the smears. If Clinton were corrupt, she'd been indicted--like Rezko.

I don't think anyone who has commented negatively on Obama's dust-up with the NYT reporter today is being genuine, if they fail to also comment on Bill's recent red-faced blow-ups with the press in the last weeks. Let's see, the Clinton's can yell at anyone, but if Obama counters or defends, he is in meltdown. Have I got that right?

I guess that I am just gonna have to hope that you slimy, sour grapes Obama supporters on this site who plan to punish the Dems don't really represent many voters. I think they call that cutting off your nose to spite your face, again proving yourselves to be nothing more than spoiled little children. Who do you punish by not supporting choice or the environment or healthcare for all? Yeah, I guess its the party. Idiots.

Keith, New Yorkers are behind Obama just as much as they are behind Hillary, at this point. I do not trust the poll numbers I'm seeing, when I look at the membership numbers that Obama has in his NYC4Obama and NYC Chapter for Obama for President and other websites all around my home state.

If Obama can't beat Hillary, then he certainly can't beat a Republican.

Not only is your reasoning puerile, its conclusion runs counter to all the empirical evidence at hand. Coupled with your condescension, how in the world do you expect to convince any of us to cast a vote for, much less heartily support, HRC?

I agree that this "politics" as usual needs to stop. Bill is not winning any hearts by showing his co-dependent side.

Isn't it clear to everyone the Boomers have messed up enough and it's time to step aside and allow the next generation guide us out of this mess?

If Bill needs to validate his wife, he can do that in New York, not on the public stage.

It's one thing to post this when you haven't had a chance to watch the video, it's another to leave it up on your site without an update even though the video shows no tussle, no anger, no confrontation. What the hell are you guys reporting here?

Colonpowow:

It's pretty sad that your impulse is to immediately assume that my post was dishonest. Maybe you're projecting or judging me by your own standards?

In any case, I am willing -- and able -- to verify much of the information I posted above. Which was entirely sincere. I don't take kindly to you calling me a liar, but I am happy to peacefully prove you wrong. Post below if you'd like to exchange email addresses or can suggest another reasonable way to exchange information. I've kept plenty of paraphenalia from my College Dems days and my days volunteering for the 90's Clinton campaigns and can provide plenty of testimonials from people who can comfirm my account.

Second, you seem to misunderstand part of what I wrote. I made it clear that my disillusionment with the Clintons' approach to politics and policy has been building since the later nineties. I made up my mind late last summer that I would support either Edwards or Obama during the primaries. Over the past couple of weeks, I have become particularly disgusted by both Clintons' dishonest, divisive tactics toward Obama. However, until last night I was set on supporting the eventual Democratic Nominee. But Hillary Clinton's gleeful lying last night convinced me I simply cannot stand to cast my vote for her. If it came down to it and I lived in a swing state I would probably hold my nose and cast that vote. Fortunately, as a New Yorker I probably will not have to.

I didn't and don't claim to be more progressive or pure than any principled Democrat. I was just sharing my point of view as one voter.

Finally, throwing around terms like "elitist" is just groundless name-calling. I grew up in a lower middle class, single parent family and was eligible for federally subsidized school lunches during much of elementary school. I have a bachelor's degree, but live on a very modest income and have gone significant stretches in recent years without health care coverage. Assuming I fit a certain profile and tendentiously asserting so doesn't make your argument any stronger or your silly claims against me any more accurate.

Correction:

Colonpowwow:

I misread the last sentence of your post. You were referring to yourself, ironically or otherwise, as elitist -- not to me.

My mistake!

shoeless joe mccarthy--Amen indeed, I couldn't agree with you more.

Generally speaking--what is up with this pathetic excuse for an article? How is it news that Obama shrugs off idiotic questions from a reporter? How is that a "verbal tussle"?

And the tone on these blogs, from people of supposedly similar political affiliations, is getting caustic beyond control. Compare the present climate to only three weeks ago, when the Democratic party had more life and buoyancy than at any time I've personally witnessed (being only 27). It's not just the ex-president that needs to tone it down.

The hateful comments made by HRC supporters here just make me feel even less inclined to support her in a general.

as if there isn't an equal amount of bile and idiocy to go around from obama's supporters???

give me a break.

i will not vote for EITHER clinton or obama in the general should either one of them win the nomination.

i will however vote AGAINST whoever the republican nominee may be.

i am not petty and arrogant enough to do otherwise. and i couldn't live with myself having that much blood on MY hands.

I love it. Maybe video will surface of the moment so we can see whether this was really as bad as it was made to sound here. Post first, look into the veracity of the story later. Seems backwards, but, OK, fine. Except, several hours after video is available -- video showing the ABC story was essentially made up -- there's no follow-up.

TPM, I love you, but this one has done significant damage to your credibility.

Zogby has Obama up 18 on Bill in SC. Since Hillary's not there, he's essentially whipping Bill... ;)

I wonder you people will do who would never vote for Hillary under any circumstances, if Obama is her running mate?

Greg Sargent is such a hack. Josh, you really let this guy diminish the credibility of your site.

EC, here's a way to redeem yourselves for this post, which after seeing the video [which you never linked to] was really overblown.

Do a post on the lastest YouTube phenomenon of so many folks listening to the whole 34 minute speech Obama gave at the Ebenezer Church last Sunday. The Nation just wrote about this:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=273806

Here's an excerpt:

"The speech has now drawn over 268,000 views, after about 36 hours online. By contrast, a shorter, spicier clip of Clinton and Obama's debate clash currently has under 50,000 views, (after half a day), while a week's exposure gave Bill Clinton's Nevada complaints over half a million views on YouTube. But it's not only remarkable that so many viewers are choosing a long, serious speech over the political theatrics that dominate typical news. This kind of YouTube speech is also distinct because it enables voters to appraise a candidate directly, without any filters. News coverage is larded with polls and meta-analysis, while top bloggers increasingly talk strategy. Even the debates are often clogged with moderator framing and false premises. So despite our proliferating media, it's hard for most voters to hear directly from the candidates who would be president, unless you move to Iowa. (Or make C-SPAN your new appointment television.) But it looks like when the speech is available and the candidate is inspiring, people still want to listen."

What a lousy article. Embarrassing, really.

Pssssssssssssssssss..Greg.....take the hint..........Don't say anything negative about Obama or you may have the Wrath of the Obamaites come down upon your head. Sayith the Obama. Taken from the Book of Obama.

What the real hint for Greg is

Don't adopt the Clinton tactic of manufacturing things about Obama to crticize. Too much speculation at odds with the facts here.

Greg!! Geez. "Maybe video will surface" of the exchange? Yeah, maybe it will, and then maybe it will be appropriate for you to weigh in on whether it constituted a "tussle" or not. Oops, wait a second, what do we have here?

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4174637

Guess what? Not a "tussle." Not at all. Obama was nothing short of respectful to a reporter who was seemingly a bit out of bounds in asking the same question repeatedly, and NOT while Obama was NOT holding a press gaggle, as you claim in a later post, but rather, greeting various supporters. Yes, members of the press were there, but he was NOT holding court.

This video has been available for the last 12 hours. Where's our "Late Update," Greg-O? Ah, I see, you and your lackey Kleefeld begged off early last night, right? You sure it wasn't just that it was important for you and your candidate of choice to have this story -- and its blatantly misleading headline -- hanging at the top of TPM-EC for a full 14 hours? Especially since she's about to get her hat handed to her in SC?

A final point. Knowing as you must that a story about an African-American candidate getting into a "tussle" might appeal to the racial prejudices of some white SC voters, you had a responsibility to make sure this characterization was an accurate one before printing this. You knew there would be video. You should have waited. And now you should apologize.

And I don't want to hear that ABC said it first. That's not journalism. Reflexively peating rumor and second hand accounts rather than digesting all available information and making an independent analysis, simply because the rumor and second hand accounts seem to benefit your candidate of choice? That's being a shill. So do your homework. Report news. And say 10 Hail Marys while you're at it for the very real damage you are doing to our democracy.

And take two of these and correct your headline in the morning:

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4174637

"Maybe video will surface of the moment so we can see whether this was really as bad as it was made to sound here."

I'm confused. What exactly is the "bad" part?

You Hillary supporters don't think this sort of "coverage" and your snark don't drive away people who might otherwise have voted for Hillary?

We'll see.

Heres the video, its no where near as intense of an encounter as the reporter makes it out to be. No where!

The reporter is completely exaggerating.

But who cares right!

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/01/22/obamas-ropeline-question/

Yeah, the video makes it terribly clear that this headline is idiotic at best.

Any possibility that this was somehow an innocent mistake by Greg just disappeared. Even after numerous posts, including some with links to the actual video footage, have pointed out that there was nothing close to a "tussle" that occurred, TPM's front page has just now put a headline at the top of its page that asks the question, "Did Obama Get Into Tussle With NYT Reporter?"... which, if you click on the link, takes you to this very article, with its still-as-misleading-as-ever headline "Obama Gets Into Verbal Tussle With Reporter."

Just disgusting.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4174637

Ha. And now TPM has pulled the headline from the front page. "Who... us?"

That's a good start. But an apology and correction is called for here. A staff shakeup (ahem, overhaul) at TPM-EC would be too much to ask, I know.

I suppose the suggestion was supposed to be "Is Obama losing his cool, right?" -- one precisely parallel to Hillary's "he's frustrated" mantra from yesterday. Watching the video shows how ridiculous this "charge" is -- Obama is good-natured and jaunty throughout the supposedly revealing exchange. I think this one warrants a correction, and an explanation of how Election Central came to think the rope line story (if we can call it that) was worthy of space.

we just updated the post. I didn't see the vid until this morning.

I updated as soon as I saw it.

thanks, greg

don't do that anymore.

It is clear that ABC is simply using the Clinton campaign's slimy tactic: "Obama is just another frustrated, angry black man."

Thanks for the update Greg. I'm an Obama supporter, but don't see any ulterior motives behind the delayed update. I think people on all sides are hyperventilating over these things too much

Greg Sargent is such a hack. Josh, you really let this guy diminish the credibility of your site.

EC, here's a way to redeem yourselves for this post, which after seeing the video [which you never linked to] was really overblown.

Do a post on the lastest YouTube phenomenon of so many folks listening to the whole 34 minute speech Obama gave at the Ebenezer Church last Sunday.

Whatever.

Then maybe they could do a piece on how Kucinich wins so many internet polls.

Listen, a lot of what TPM/EC does in covering the campaigns is covering media reports about the campaigns – both because of the nature of blogging and because media reports are a fundamental part of the election process.

The way this was reported by ABC made this seem a LOT more than the non-event the video and even Zeleny show it to be. Which is exactly what Greg said could be the case. Greg hasn’t posted anything at TPM since the video surfaced so everyone accusing him of deliberately not updating this needs to hold their fricking horses already.

But more than that I think it is absolutely pitiful that when the video shows that the ABC report turned out to be terribly exaggerated, everyone jumped down Greg’s throat instead of ABC’s. ABC is who got the story wrong, not Greg. Greg was merely reporting what ABC was saying, which Greg clearly pointed out.

I will be voting for Clinton in the primary but this is a non-story event.

Obama may have been a little testy or even petulant about answering a dumb question, but no more than Clinton or Edwards have been.

This headline fits nicely into the "frustrated" line Hilary has been pushing. Greg, an attempt to check on this on your part should have yielded a completely different headline. The video clearly shows that this is a non-story. Your readers seemed to have little difficulty finding the video, so why didnt you look into it? At least be "fair and balanced".

TPM,

Come on. If ABC's spin is inaccurate and irresponsible, then CHANGE YOUR HEADLINE! It's totally inaccurate. Watch the video. Then look up the definition of "tussle" in the dictionary.

How stupid. Change the headline and screw ABC.

WTF? Is there no credibility here? What is the job you people are trying to do? Can you stop and think about your job for 1 second?

TAKE DOWN THE HEADLINE, or put up an equally large one about how in your inexplicable haste, you just got spun like a top in a way that happens to feeds the Hillary campaign narrative you just reported on yesterday.

What a joke.

stay tuned for a longer post on this

I hope it's an extensive Horses Mouth article about the fallacies of reporting every little piece of "juicy" news that is more appropriate for E!

Even were this article, and title, proven by video to be factual, reposting it would serve no purpose other than to give the Non Obama supporters something to point and laugh at. I dont condone it when people do it against my preferred candidate and I dont condone or support it when done against the other candidates I dont support.

Isn't the Horses Mouth whole point pointing out where journalists should be ashamed and is geared at the whole "journalistic integrity" thing moving forward?

Where's our new, "longer post" on this? Or failing that, where's the corrected headline? This is outrageous.

This is a mischaracterization of what happened. What ever happened to checking the facts first?

I give credit to TPM for coming back and giving good play to the fact that ABC botched the "story," and for copping to their own complicity. Everyone's going to make mistakes; admitting to them is the mark of a credible journalist. Thanks, Greg.

Hey, Americans!

I've been interested in this particular race to WH and I have to say if you do it wrong you'll be crying the hell out of you should you vote for a Clinton again. I'm sorry, but are you that stupid to be mind-blinded to vote for such a corrupt like Clintons? Have you forgotten all of their scandals? Don't you know it's become a family-game match? Don't you get it? Were I american, I woouldn't fall on that trap, I'd either vote republican or Edwards or Obama, but never that witch!