Obama Gets Into Verbal Tussle With Reporter

Comments (224)

tym wrote on January 22, 2008 6:53 PM:

Lifelong Democrat
Last night's debate finalized my vote for next November.
The Bush-Clinton era must be ended.
I will never vote for Hillary
If she is the nominee, I will vote Republican for the first time in my life or a third party.
If it is Obama or Edwards then I will vote Democrat.
One last thing, if Hillary is the nominee I will also change my registration to Independent and drop my membership in the local Democratic party.
I urge like minded Democrats to follow me, and punish the Democratic party if they nominate that women.

Angry Vet wrote on January 22, 2008 6:58 PM:

Ugh.

Here we go......

bob wrote on January 22, 2008 7:00 PM:

Describing it as "took 3 times" is silly and unfair. Here are the 3 times:

1. "I am trying to make sure that his statements by him are answered. Don't you think that's important?" Obama shot back, while walking away.

2. When Zeleny yelled a follow up question suggesting the Illinois senator had not answered the question, Obama fired back angrily, "Don't try cheap stunts like that."

3. Obama then returned to the reporter:

"I will answer your question, though off the record. Would you like to talk off the record?" Obama asked, to which Zeleny motioned toward the gaggle of TV cameras gathered around him, demonstrating that it was impossible to answer off the record right then.
A bit later, Obama concluded: "My suspicion is that the other side must be rattled if they’re continuing saying false things about us."

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 7:03 PM:

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.

pacc wrote on January 22, 2008 7:03 PM:

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.

Good riddance.

Greg wrote on January 22, 2008 7:04 PM:

agreed. it seems silly.

mari wrote on January 22, 2008 7:05 PM:

Umm...I don't get it.

Why do I care?

Greg wrote on January 22, 2008 7:05 PM:

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

Exile wrote on January 22, 2008 7:05 PM:

Pretty stupid question, actually. And Obama answered it, sort of. Wanting to go 'off the record' was a bit odd, though.

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 7:06 PM:

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

FreshPaw wrote on January 22, 2008 7:06 PM:

I thought the same thing!
Two weeks ago, when all this swiftboating began, I actually had a nightmare about it. In fact it was the day Charles Rangel said Obama was 'stupid', or some nonsense. In the beginning I thought I could live with either Hillary or Obama or Edwards, but in fact now I see that if Hillary gets the nomination, I may vote Republican as well. I use to love the Democratic party too.

facta non verba wrote on January 22, 2008 7:06 PM:

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.

Toni wrote on January 22, 2008 7:07 PM:

Sounds like the going is getting tuff for Obama....and seems like he doesn't do well under pressure. Not good credentials for a presidential contender.

Greg wrote on January 22, 2008 7:07 PM:

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

one wrote on January 22, 2008 7:09 PM:

Picking are slim! It seems your readers are getting fewer! Soon, the choir will preach to itself! ABC has reported at least one other non stories today. Also, the selective rendering of the State newspaper article. Editorial discretion is a great idea but TPM's approach is getting to be a bit too much!!!

Rich wrote on January 22, 2008 7:13 PM:

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.

Tapper wrote on January 22, 2008 7:14 PM:

Big deal.
At worst a tired frazzled Obama snapped at a NYT reporter.
And really, one can understand his wanting the campaign to be all about him and his suggestion that his supporters might bolt the party if he's denied.
Tick Tock Hussein!
Hope that you've enjoyed your five minutes.

tym wrote on January 22, 2008 7:15 PM:

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

Clintons - what liars and cheap slimy politicians

Keith wrote on January 22, 2008 7:16 PM:

Gotta keep the cat fight going at all cost.

Jay wrote on January 22, 2008 7:17 PM:

"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.

tym wrote on January 22, 2008 7:17 PM:

Tapper

Hillary probably cant win with us
But without us, she will be trounced.

I am going to enjoy that, as much as anything I have seen in politics.
The end of the corrupt Clintons

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 7:18 PM:

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

Jay wrote on January 22, 2008 7:19 PM:

"Tick Tock Hussein!
Hope that you've enjoyed your five minutes."

..all these premature ejaculatory celebrations just point to peoples desperation - that looks good for Obama.

Jay wrote on January 22, 2008 7:19 PM:

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

Again.. *Yawn*

Tapper wrote on January 22, 2008 7:21 PM:

Ah yes, from the people who brought us Bushit:

"Hillary probably cant win with us
But without us, she will be trounced".

More Obaidiot arse wipe.

Common Sense wrote on January 22, 2008 7:23 PM:

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.

Angry Vet wrote on January 22, 2008 7:24 PM:

HRC Supporters-

Some of you guys disgust me. Realize that your antics (just like some Obama supporters antics) only drive people away from your candidate.

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 7:24 PM:

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

Jaz wrote on January 22, 2008 7:24 PM:

Obama losing it...from the sounds of the ABC reporter..

Everyone has their low points, Hillary had hers in Iowa.

People saying they would vote Republican... Sure, if you want another 8 years of Iraq war, tax cuts for the rich, no decent healthcare..you go for it!

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 7:24 PM:

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

tym wrote on January 22, 2008 7:26 PM:

Tapper
You are the biggest asshole here
Nothing lower in the world than a shill for Bill and Hill

We will have the last laugh
I can guarantee that

zipper lips wrote on January 22, 2008 7:28 PM:

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.

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

All this venom against Clinton when it is really Obamba on the spot and showing a rather uncool side. Sure sounds like a lot of folks are already planning to scoop up their marbles and slink home if Clinton beats Obama, as is increasingly likely. Events like this today show further why he isn't a suitable candidate. Now, for these party quiters, what if Huckabee ecks out a win and your choice is between Clinton and Huckabee? Are you going to vote for Huckabee? Maybe McCain, or Romney? And if you fail to support the Democratic candidate, say it is Clinton, what role do you think you'll have in the party's near-term future? Maybe you can start a third party called the Anybody But Clinton Party.

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

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.

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

Gee anonymous, I'm not making fun of Hussein, I'm making fun of his servitors and lackeys.
You know, Obaidiots and Rethugicans like you.

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

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

Jaz wrote on January 22, 2008 7:30 PM:

tym, last laugh?

Are you a progressive democrat or not? There is almost no difference between hillary and Obama on policy.

Obama is well behind in key states for Super-Tuesday, he's sliding to defeat.

blackstar wrote on January 22, 2008 7:32 PM:

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.

bob wrote on January 22, 2008 7:32 PM:

Here is the quote of the day:

"I kinda like seeing Barack and Hillary fight," [Bill] Clinton non-chalantly admitted to the crowd at one point.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/bill-clinton-im.html

Someone also asked Bill a great question, one that I have definitely thought about, although not in these exact terms, to which Bill basically gave a non-answer:

"You know, you're often called the first Black president," Busby began. "And I wanted to ask, a lot of us believe that Senator Obama eventually will be the first black president. Are you gonna be okay with having stood in his way? And do you think that will affect your legacy amongst the blacks here in South Carolina?"

Jenny wrote on January 22, 2008 7:33 PM:

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!!!!

Thompson Lives! wrote on January 22, 2008 7:34 PM:

Bushit, Obaidiots and Rethugicans, oh my!

That's what 1,000 monkeys with 1,000 typewriters will get you. Take a bow, Tapper. You're the lowest common denominator.

Tapper wrote on January 22, 2008 7:35 PM:

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.

bob wrote on January 22, 2008 7:37 PM:

No, Tapper, you are referring to Sen. Obama by his middle name in a silly, childish, and perhaps racist attempt to put off people from a candidate based on his name and background.

Do you refer to Bill as Jefferson or Hillary as Rodham or whatever she did with her original middle name once Bill finally convinced her to take his name to help his political career? Obviously not.

Tapper wrote on January 22, 2008 7:40 PM:

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.

cminmd wrote on January 22, 2008 7:40 PM:

"People saying they would vote Republican... Sure, if you want another 8 years of Iraq war, tax cuts for the rich, no decent healthcare..you go for it!"

I am another lifelong Dem who will vote for McCain over Hillary. That stunt in Nevada lost them my support forever. The Democratic Party has always been about expanding the vote and for protecting the right of all voters to have access to polling places. The Clinton argument came straight out the DOJ/ voter ID playbook. I was ashamed to have them represent my party, even more than the whole time I had to defend his office BJ's and her suddenly "finding" her old file boxes of legal papers.

Let's be clear- those tax cuts, bankrupcy bill and the Iraq war all occured with HRC's support in the Senate. As for healthcare- the one candidate the Republicans know how to beat on healthcare is HRC. So why do you think she would be able to pass it this time? The difference between Obama and HRC- as she admitted in her debate last night- is that he got healthcare legislation passed in his state.

Tapper wrote on January 22, 2008 7:43 PM:

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

Jay wrote on January 22, 2008 7:44 PM:

The tone was rather different here.(http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/01/22/obamas-ropeline-question/)

Zeleny, who has intermittently covered Obama since 2004, lobbed a question as Obama signed autographs for supporters. “Are you allowing President Clinton to get into your head?”

Obama grinned. “I am trying to make sure that his statements by him are answered. Don’t you think that’s important?” He turned back to sign more Obama signs. Zeleny followed up. “Don’t try cheap stunts like that - come on, Jeff. You’re better than that,” Obama replied.

Zeleny responded that it was his job to ask him questions and noted we haven’t had an opportunity to do so in awhile. Obama continued shaking hands with voters. He came back over to the group of reporters and TV cameras and said, “I will [answer] your question, though. You allowed to talk off the record for a second?” The TV cameras filmed and Zeleny gestured to all the cameras. “It’s hard to do. But I’ll talk, at some point I’ll [answer] your question.”>>

tym wrote on January 22, 2008 7:44 PM:

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

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 7:45 PM:

Greg Sargent is shameless. Neither that statement or this "tussle" are news.

If you don't have anything to report, Greg, don't report.

This is the most important presidential election in decades. Don't continue to trivialize it.

Bob wrote on January 22, 2008 7:46 PM:

Tapper

you sound like a goddamn fool

Tapper wrote on January 22, 2008 7:47 PM:

As if I did not know ya'll thought that.

I'm having an identity (sic) crises I tell ya.

Jaz wrote on January 22, 2008 7:48 PM:

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.

Thompson Lives! wrote on January 22, 2008 7:49 PM:

Anyone else think Tapper is Rush Limbaugh playing a joke on us? Pretty damned funny, Rush. Well done.

Jenny wrote on January 22, 2008 7:53 PM:

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...

Angry Vet wrote on January 22, 2008 7:53 PM:

We match our candidates.

Ragy debate = ragy post mortem the next day. Perhaps HRC and BHO will come out and call for peace again.

Not bloody likely.

Let the purge of the trivially different begin!!!

tym wrote on January 22, 2008 7:54 PM:

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

tym wrote on January 22, 2008 7:57 PM:

Jenny
The absolutely last thing I ever want to see is the corrupt Clintons in the White House again.

Guess Hillary would have to prohibit the intern program, if she won

grover_rover wrote on January 22, 2008 7:57 PM:

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!!!

Alex wrote on January 22, 2008 7:58 PM:

tym - My sentiments exactly! My son and I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. I will return to being an Independent and I will not vote for any Democratic candidates on the PA ballor.

Jenny wrote on January 22, 2008 7:59 PM:

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.

tym wrote on January 22, 2008 8:01 PM:

grover_rover and Alex

Lot of us out there
No wonder McCain leads Billary 51-39

colonpowwow wrote on January 22, 2008 8:01 PM:

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.

hadenough wrote on January 22, 2008 8:03 PM:

It could obama's four pollsters showed him the internal polling for SC. Maybe mr. inevitable isn't. Or maybe the poor little rich kid has had enough of not getting his way and is headed for a public full blown tantrum. Ah well. Just guessing.

tym wrote on January 22, 2008 8:03 PM:

Jenny

I might vote for McCain but never Huckabee

He is from Arkansas like the corrupt Clintons

Republican Attack Machine wrote on January 22, 2008 8:04 PM:

If I were Barack, I'd be pretty mad at reporters right now too. His record and words are being twisted by the Clinton campaign while the media dotes on Bill's words like they're unquestionable.

Jaz wrote on January 22, 2008 8:05 PM:

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.

crayz wrote on January 22, 2008 8:07 PM:

The full video is right in the FoxNews page

Obama seems maybe slightly pissed, but he isn't losing his cool at all. Seems like a completely manufactured incident

Thompson Lives! wrote on January 22, 2008 8:10 PM:

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?

Changenow wrote on January 22, 2008 8:11 PM:

I'm so beyond sick of the constant slime we've had to put up with over the last 15 years. There are legitimate issues to use against Obama. He doesn't have much experience. But I liked the hope message and I despise with all my heart and soul the gutter politics of the Clintons and their counterparts in the Republican Party.

I'll find a third party on the ballot. Couldn't be worse for the country.

rg wrote on January 22, 2008 8:12 PM:

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.

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 8:13 PM:

jaz

Rezko is nothing compared to the Whitewater scam/scandal the the Clintons were full partners in.
This is not to mention Norman Hsu and the the corrupt campaign financing. I believe a record amount of funds had to be returned.
He will soon be indicted too.

maybe the Feds can geta plea bargain out of him

tym wrote on January 22, 2008 8:15 PM:

rg

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

w wrote on January 22, 2008 8:16 PM:

This is good...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAkIidChxic&eurl=http://www.taylormarsh.com/

Jenny wrote on January 22, 2008 8:18 PM:

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....

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 8:19 PM:

Still baffled why we would dis any Democratic nominee.

jeanette3654 wrote on January 22, 2008 8:21 PM:

Just ANOTHER reason to vote for Ron Paul!

tym wrote on January 22, 2008 8:22 PM:

Jenny

What dont you understand about the word never

I never will vote for Hillary and certainly not on the baandwagon

Guess I am not one of those low information voters

rg wrote on January 22, 2008 8:24 PM:

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.

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 8:25 PM:

No tym, you are obviously a pro-war, pro-life, anti-union, et al voter who would like a Republican to appoint a SCJ, that's your right, go for it.

Thompson Lives! wrote on January 22, 2008 8:27 PM:

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?

JTinSoCal wrote on January 22, 2008 8:27 PM:

Typical play it safe Democrats. We know Hillary's record so she's safe. The party lacks ballz. Too bad Bill couldn't control his.

brad wrote on January 22, 2008 8:28 PM:

jenny

care to back up your bluff on rezko?

colonpowwow wrote on January 22, 2008 8:30 PM:

tym:

By all means then, please don't let the saloon door hit you in the elephant on your way out of the party.

The rest of us actual Democrats will be raising a toast to the first woman President in the glorious progressive history of the United States.

BTW - I understand Mr. Nader is considering turning away for a bit from managing his stock portfolio online and is considering another go. I understand he needs a new press manager or something.

Jenny wrote on January 22, 2008 8:30 PM:

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....

EvanR wrote on January 22, 2008 8:32 PM:

For what it's worth:

I met Hillary Clinton in Little Rock in Feb. 1992 as a first year college student.

I volunteered for Bill Clinton's campaign in both '92 and '96

I served as President of the College Democrats at a major college campus in the nineties.

The lazy, rampant cynicism toward government symbolized by the movie "Wag the Dog" made me sick.

In the mid-late nineties, I became increasingly dissillusioned with the Clinton Adm, specifically the absurd focus on hyper poll-tested nonsolutions like the legendary V-chip. Not to mention the Dick Morris and Mark Penn style of leadership, focused on policy prioritization by triangulation. The constant distractions brought on by GOP-driven scandals hardly seemed the Clintons' fault. Until it became clear the Bill was willing to risk his own agenda and the needs of millions of vulnerable Americans in order to pursue a cheesy tryst with an intern.

Trust me, I understand the sharp distinction between the gross disappointments and compromises of the Clinton years and the unprecedented disaster that has been the Bush Adminstration. Since I turned eighteen I have voted exclusively for Democrats. I will never vote for a Republican.

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 live in New York State. I admittedly enjoy a luxury many other Democrats do not: I can vote selfishly and follow my conscience instead of doing what is clearly the right thing in other circumstances: voting strategically for the best available candidate who stands a chance of being elected.

I can no longer stand either Hillary or Bill Clinton. I have had enough. Virtually all they care about is their own egos, their own ambitions, their own intertwined path to power. We can do better.

Anonymous89 wrote on January 22, 2008 8:34 PM:

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).

JTinSoCal wrote on January 22, 2008 8:35 PM:

Jenny,

Charisma far outweighs policy wonkishness. Just look @ history. Hillary's the Democratic version of Dick Nixon.

brewmn wrote on January 22, 2008 8:36 PM:

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.

JTinSoCal wrote on January 22, 2008 8:38 PM:

Evan,

Great post. Bill Clinton's chopping down one of the best Democratic candidates in a long time. This is unprecendented and disappointing... Bill's ego is more important than the party.

Changenow wrote on January 22, 2008 8:39 PM:

"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.

TrueBlue wrote on January 22, 2008 8:45 PM:

$20 million Dub-buyout for Bill Clinton.

Did you catch Hillary's non-answer to Edwards' lobbyist question should she get to the white house?

Hillary has indicated clearly over time that she will be keeping troops in Iraq--hasn't anyone noticed how cozy she is with the military industrial complex?

Some people are making lots of money in the climate of the War in Iraq and the War on Terror--such as the Clinton family (hedge-fund daughter: awww, cute little Chelsea is a grown up Clinton now).

When will some of you people wake up and see what might happen here? Either she and Bill, if she gets the nomination, will take the party down to a crippling defeat, or, if she wins, her coattails will be like her husband's--non-existent. What does it mean to be a democrat anymore if this is what we have to look forward to?

Anonymous88 wrote on January 22, 2008 8:47 PM:

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.

DonnaG wrote on January 22, 2008 8:49 PM:

Sometimes, it takes a crisis to initiate deep change.

A whole lot of folks who may have the beginnings of chronic illness creeping up on them are so caught up in their usual habits that they will first and for a long time chose to mask the problem, especially with pain killing drugs or other 'answers' that promise quick relief. It is more common than not to witness an unwillingness to grapple with the hard changes required to address the underlying cause of the chronic illness. Folks are short-sighted and even lazy that way, until that is, the underlying problem literally stops their ability to function, creates unbearable pain, or threatens to end their very life.

I have been thinking about this as I read these threads and as I ponder the difference between Hillary's appeal and Obama's appeal with respect to what has become a chronic dis-ease in politics and government.

What Obama is saying is that 'politics as usual' is a root cause of the impotency of governmental function, and 'lines in the sand' rhetoric simply aggravates the disease's hold, and the 'cure' will require building a new majority which agrees to deep functional changes.

What Hillary is saying is that the Republicans, especially the Bush team, have been the reason for all that ails America [Iraq fiasco, no health care for milllions, poverty, etc] so the 'cure' is to fight tooth and nail to change brands in the Executive Branch....to replace incompetence with competence.

I cannot help but think that Obama is like some old-fashioned doctor whose diagnosis looks at the whole of the patient's lifestyle, while Hillary is like a specialist who looks at the symptoms and offers a new brand of palliative drug or procedure.

If I am correct, and if Hillary's pushing her cure-all brand gets her the nomination or especially the White House, it won't be long before the promised palliative loses its placebo effect.

We may just be pushing America's decline and its deeper causes out of consciousness, but not out of reality.

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 8:52 PM:

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.

colonpowwow wrote on January 22, 2008 8:54 PM:

EvanR:

Wow. That's a very detailed post for someone who claims they are a Democrat yet wouldn't support the nominee that fellow Democrats select in open primaries.

How elitist and progressiver-than-thou, thou art!

BTW - I don't believe for a second that you were a Clinton supporter until the time that Hillary finally chose to run. Just my elitist opinion.

rg wrote on January 22, 2008 8:58 PM:

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.

Changenow wrote on January 22, 2008 9:01 PM:

Some of us voted for the Clintons twice. They had two terms. They made a particular mess of their second term. They are not entitled to a third term.

brad wrote on January 22, 2008 9:04 PM:

Evan,

Great post. You summed up my feelings exactly.

colonpowwow wrote on January 22, 2008 9:06 PM:

Changenow wrote on January 22, 2008 9:01 PM:

"Some of us voted for the Clintons twice. They had two terms. They made a particular mess of their second term. They are not entitled to a third term."

Not even if the majority of us fellow Democrats elect her to be our candidate in open primary because we think she'll make an excellent President (better than Bill).

Got it. Thanks for your support.

Anonymous89 wrote on January 22, 2008 9:07 PM:

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...

wglad wrote on January 22, 2008 9:07 PM:

How funny. Obama is beginning to look and sound very uptight. Almost prudish. I'm beginning to feel lectured by someone who has been reading and believing his own campaign BS. Reminds me of someone from the past. Can't quite put my finger on it.

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

Changenow wrote on January 22, 2008 9:11 PM:

"At-least with Hillary there's accountability."

I hold her accountable for her vote for the Iraq War and her vote for Kyl-Lieberman. Therefore, I cannot vote for her.

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 9:13 PM:

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

Anonymous89 wrote on January 22, 2008 9:14 PM:

Tym,

I don't think Obama would have sanctioned that elitist/divise statement of yours ("low education, poorly informed"). Considering how his campaign is all about change and ending bitter political rhetoric/gridlock....you know...the new campaign slogan.

When you think about it:
Clinton and Obama have MINISCULE differences; both are corporatist (favor negotiating with big businesses, compromising with people who destroy the middle class, et.c)

Support Edwards First.
Support Any Democratic Nominee Second.

colonpowwow wrote on January 22, 2008 9:14 PM:

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?

blackstar wrote on January 22, 2008 9:16 PM:

Wow. That's a very detailed post for someone who claims they are a Democrat yet wouldn't support the nominee that fellow Democrats select in open primaries.

How elitist and progressiver-than-thou, thou art!

------------------

there you have it. hyper-partisan, hyper-exclusive, you're-either-with-us-or-against-us politics. if you don't support Hillary you're not a Democrat, you're either a "elitist" or a secret Republican in disguise.

that's what we can look forward to from Hillary and her supporters should she get elected. and i'm not sure our country can afford it.

Pembleton wrote on January 22, 2008 9:17 PM:

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.

johnk wrote on January 22, 2008 9:19 PM:

Video of the exchange posted at Fox ..

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

Michael A wrote on January 22, 2008 9:19 PM:

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.

Jenny wrote on January 22, 2008 9:19 PM:

These posts are laughable...really ridiculous. Most of you (if not all of you) were doing really well at the end of the Clinton administration. We were not at war, as a country and individually we were doing great financially and in general our standard of living was at a high. Somehow you all forgot that for petty reasons that are of no consequence. Now the USA and most of us individuals are in great dispair. Get real people....you will lose the 2008 election and get some right wing neocon into office....So sad...we have great possibilities and you want to throw them away.

colonpowwow wrote on January 22, 2008 9:20 PM:

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.

Anonymous89 wrote on January 22, 2008 9:20 PM:

For example,

BOTH HRC and BO accepted funds from the NUCLEAR INDUSTRY:

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=125&sid=1329286

wglad wrote on January 22, 2008 9:23 PM:

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.

Changenow wrote on January 22, 2008 9:24 PM:

The Iraq War is not a petty reason, Jenny. If Hillary has all the experience she claims, she had the experience to understand fully that Bush was lying us into war. I do not believe she was mislead. I do believe she knew there was no legitimate reason for a preemptive war. I do believe she knows that Kyl-Lieberman was intended to legitimize the possibilty of a similar war with Iran. I expect her to make a right turn when she is nominated. I do not believe she will get us out of Iraq.

I will not vote for her.

colonpowwow wrote on January 22, 2008 9:26 PM:

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!

blackstar wrote on January 22, 2008 9:26 PM:

Obama, through his campaign surrogates and supporters mischaracterize Hillary's MLK/LBJ statement to the black community

---------------

uh, no. yet another falsehood. maybe you'd like to supply some actual evidence supporting this claim. the first thing Obama said about her MLK/LBJ analogy was that it was "unfortunate" and "ill-advised", 2 days after she said his campaign was mischaracterizing it.

when in fact they weren't talking about it at all.

Anonymous89 wrote on January 22, 2008 9:27 PM:

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.

m.lewis wrote on January 22, 2008 9:28 PM:

no offense, but this is article seems like a waste of ink, or virtual ink. the headline screamed story, but it was much ado...

Lis wrote on January 22, 2008 9:30 PM:

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.

Michael A wrote on January 22, 2008 9:32 PM:

Take heart jenny, there is no way that clinton will win the general election, so we don't have to worry about a right-wing neocon in the white house. Clinton will never win the general even if she is able to lie and triangulate and manipulate the democratic party to give her the nomination. Have no fear.

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 9:33 PM:

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.

Changenow wrote on January 22, 2008 9:35 PM:

Anonymous89

Yes, I agree Obama has demonstrated no courage in the Senate. I will be supporting Edwards on 2/5. I'd prefer Feingold. Too bad the ones who do the hard work and make the hard votes don't run. That tells you something else about the mess we're in. We get profiles in phony tough not profiles in courage.

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 9:41 PM:

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

Feingold On Edwards

NCSteve wrote on January 22, 2008 9:45 PM:

Jesus H. Frakkin Christ, people. With perhaps three exceptions (and I'm not claiming that this comment is one of them), this is easily the dumbest, most pointless, most infantile foodfight I have ever seen on this site, bar none. I'm not leaving the Obama supporters out of that assessment. I suspect you'd find a more intelligent discussion of the issues and our differences at a frat kegger. After the competitive vomiting has begun.

It's just depressing.

I'm not one of those "if we don't stop fighting, the Republicans will beat us" whiners, because I've been paying a little attention to what's going on over there and, trust me, its getting just as ugly as it is in our own party.

But it honestly makes me wonder if over the last fifteen years, Gingrich, Delay, Cheney, and Rove, ably assisted by our ever more brain dead political journalists, haven't poisoned our political culture to the point that we're headed to a day that our elections look like what we've seen in Mexico and Kenya and Georgia (the former SSR, not the state). It alarms me how both sides are increasingly are attributing the same characteristings to some mythological other side. Its a sign that the last vestiges of critical thinking have broken down and we're reduced to the bigotry of defamatory caricature.

But that's only true if we make it true.

Now I'm not going to go off into a commercial for Obama about how this mess shows the need for a new politics and yada yada yada. It doesn't strike me as productive, at this point. To say the least. I would, however, ask that we consider maybe pretending like we're still educated members of a functioning democracy rather than competing mobs of illiterates in a political system degenerating into chaos.

Could we please try just a little harder to compete with ideas rather than insults? Engage with individuals on the other side as individuals, even if they're complete assholes, rather than just consigning them to our stereotype of what "they," thereby licensing us to ignore and denigrate them?
Could we just try to ignore the trolls from the other side and, just as importantly, shout down the ones who purport to speak for our side?

And could those of you who are contributing to the increasing number of anynomous drive-by cheapshots at least have the courtesy to pick a damn pseudonym so we can at least tell you apart and engage with you? (Or, if you're just interested in drive-by sliming for its own sake, allow me to direct you to Politico where you'll fit right in.)

And yes, all of this could be justifiably be directed at me much as anybody else. I'm not without sin, and I'm casting stones, but hey, unlike my candidate, I haven't claimed to be a Christian for a long, long time now.

NCSteve wrote on January 22, 2008 9:49 PM:

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.

shoeless joe mccarthy wrote on January 22, 2008 9:54 PM:

After HRC's attacks in the debates last night, I'm seriously thinking about sitting out the general. There's no way I'd vote GOP, but I really don't think I can stand to vote for her. As Josh pointed out, she is intentionally misrepresenting Obama's Reagan/GOP comments, which were spot-on. And I've lost a great deal of the respect that I've long had for Bill Clinton. They have lied and bamboozled their way back to the front of the race.

say wha? wrote on January 22, 2008 9:59 PM:

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

Calm down, y'all.

NCSteve wrote on January 22, 2008 10:04 PM:

And, finally, if I could just post on-topic, having looked at the tape of this on Fox, it is absolutely clear that the ABC story is complete, unmitigated, bullshit. What facts are related are accurate but the innuendo and insinuation are blatantly, shamefully false.

Now, please excuse me. Since I had to go to Fox to see the tape, I have to go wash my hands.

brad wrote on January 22, 2008 10:04 PM:

I just watched the video.

This is a non-story.

Good night everyone.

hubris wrote on January 22, 2008 10:05 PM:

Guys it is not Obama v. two Clintons, but one segment of the party v. the other.
E.G. HRC has been setting up an alternative to Dean’s group for sometime now, Rubin is onboard etc.

Jake wrote on January 22, 2008 10:07 PM:

John Kerry comments on the lies:

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

Jake wrote on January 22, 2008 10:08 PM:

John Kerry comments on the lies:

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

BluePuppy wrote on January 22, 2008 10:12 PM:

"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.

DonnaG wrote on January 22, 2008 10:14 PM:

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

Well, crayz offered a link to a video at 8:07pm, more than two hours ago. Anyone watching that video knows that what was termed 'testiness' was a totally overwrought editorializing.

Greg, maybe time to update with the video...

TexModDem wrote on January 22, 2008 10:15 PM:

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.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 22, 2008 10:20 PM:

Obama... has alienated the rank and file of the Democratic Party and he will not win a single closed primary.

How many closed primaries do we have on the democratic side? Assuming that the above is even close to accurate, does it really matter?

phil wrote on January 22, 2008 10:28 PM:

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.

Michael A wrote on January 22, 2008 10:31 PM:

Thanks annon at 9:41. Excellent link and spot on. Edwards is a joke, as is clinton. I wish people would look at records as opposed to rhetoric. It really speaks volumes. I have always lived by actions speak louder than words and both edwards and clinton's action scream neocon republican as opposed to democrat. Please wake up people.

BluePuppy wrote on January 22, 2008 10:37 PM:

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.

tym wrote on January 22, 2008 10:40 PM:

blue puppy

OH
CRY ME A RIVER LIKE YOUR GIRL

Isabella Clark wrote on January 22, 2008 10:51 PM:

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?

Keith wrote on January 22, 2008 10:54 PM:

Ah, as the video demonstrates, much ado about nothing. Don't you just love the media? On another note, the New York Observer is endorsing Obama tomorrow. Not being from New York, I have no idea how to judge the value of this endorsement--though I suspect someone out there has an answer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/22/hes-transformative-and-_n_82768.html

heretic wrote on January 22, 2008 10:58 PM:

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.

FlipYrWhig wrote on January 22, 2008 11:00 PM:

Most of the evidence, such as it is, that "The Clintons" are being slimy in their politicking seems to be based on careful parsing of words and tone for maximum outcry. Then "The Clintons" are blamed again for... careful parsing of words and tone for maximum outcry.

What's the difference between the "Martin Luther King" flap and the "Ronald Reagan" flap? Virtually none. Both leave their candidate's supporters saying "But what s/he _really_ meant to say was..." And both sets of supporters know in their hearts that, yes, their opponent _did_ really mean something unobjectionable, but there are points to be scored by pretending to be Quite Concerned about What This Says. There's A LOT of willful misrepresentation going on.

Lis wrote on January 22, 2008 11:02 PM:

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.

Keith wrote on January 22, 2008 11:15 PM:

A fairly even handed fact checking of the debate kerfuffle. Maybe, just maybe, we can all agree to drop the back forth over who said what and what they meant when the said it. Well, one can hope.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/clinton-obama_slugfest.html

Joe Lisboa wrote on January 22, 2008 11:27 PM:

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?

roo_P wrote on January 22, 2008 11:27 PM:

This is Hillary Clinton, today:

"I can tell you that [Bill's stature as the leader of the Democratic party and his stature as a statesman] never crossed our minds. That's not how we think," she said. "It has absolutely nothing to do with a unified Democratic Party around a nominee and a full support for whoever our Democratic president will be. That is just the way it works."

Never truer words.

Joyce wrote on January 22, 2008 11:29 PM:

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.

info wrote on January 22, 2008 11:31 PM:

blue puppy:

Simply because you're not aware of information doesn't mean the information isn't true. An example: you say "I've heard people call Mark Penn anti-Union, without any proof."

You might not be aware of the proof. But it's there. He was (and still is) CEO of a PR firm called Burson-Marsteller Inc. One of the firm's specialities -- something it has advertised -- is confronting union organizing efforts. While Penn was CEO, Burson worked against union efforts to organize at Cintas.

Which doesn't mean that Penn was personally anti-union. But the firm that he heads is professionally anti-union. That's simply a fact. Union leaders have noted it. It isn't hard to find the proof. Try that Google thing.

You're light on other facts, too ... not surprising. But start there.

A wrote on January 22, 2008 11:41 PM:

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?

Chima wrote on January 22, 2008 11:44 PM:

After watching the video, I'm left wondering what this non-story is doing on TPM. There was no "verbal tussle", or "testy exchange" as Jeff Zeleny says. I mean..this Zeleny guy has always written anti-Obama crap on the NYT blog...all the blog commenters have been complaining about Zeleney for months.

Another day, another media smear of Obama.

EvanR wrote on January 22, 2008 11:50 PM:

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.

shoeless joe mccarthy wrote on January 22, 2008 11:51 PM:

You just don't get it, BluePuppy. I AM a working-class Democrat. Your stereotypical and divisive attempt at polarization is all too much in tune with the candidate you are supporting. Until 2-3 weeks ago I was enthusiastic about any three of the D candidates. The debate last night has made me think again--much to my dismay--that for the first time since I began to vote at age 19, I may not be supporting the D candidate in the fall. And I've gotten behind PLENTY of second choices--in the past I voted for Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, and Wes Clark in the D primaries. I've been a loyal D and I will still vote straight-D for all other offices, but I cannot promise that I will cast a vote at the presidential level. And I am far, far from being alone in that view as a liberal Democrat. The hateful comments made by HRC supporters here just make me feel even less inclined to support her in a general. Like her husband, she is all about herself and not at all about the party. Why do you think so many D senators are still endorsing Obama, even when the odds are now clearly against him? They know that HRC may eke out a general-election win, but win or lose herself, she will be a disaster for the party as a whole.

BTW, if you don't think Mark Penn is a union-buster, check out the article the Nation ran about him a few months ago.

Kudos to Anonymous for this comment:

>>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.

Amen.

EvanR wrote on January 22, 2008 11:55 PM:

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!

Jim wrote on January 23, 2008 12:12 AM:

Watch the video. Ridiculous story. Guy asks him a couple of questions and he responds.

Chris wrote on January 23, 2008 12:15 AM:

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.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 12:50 AM:

The whole Caucus event is undemocratic. Forcing people to disclose who they choose is not democratic. Period.

nonsense. while democracy can benefit from secret balloting, democracy doesn’t require secret balloting to be democratic. and it’s worth pointing out that secret balloting is more susceptible to fraud, tampering and rigging than public voting.

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.

who is this everyone you have imagined? and ending partisanship is the last thing I want. and I’m an independent! all his talk about unity and ending partisanship is WHY I’m opposed to obama. bush used the same tactic to trick people into voting for him in 2000 because there are so many suckers who eat that shit up. what I don’t like about obama is that at least I knew bush didn’t actually believe that crap...

Edwards is a joke, as is clinton. I wish people would look at records as opposed to rhetoric.

Ha! i wish the cult of obama would take their own advice. rhetoric is about the only thing separating obama from clinton. And where there are differences, as often as not, obama splits TO THE RIGHT OF clinton.

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?

Isn’t it clear that obama is a boomer just like clinton? uh, guess not.

FYI: OBAMA IS A BABY BOOMER!

Oh, now I understand colonpowwow, in order to be a loyal democrat we have to blindly follow your fearless leader.

i think the argument is that if your fellow democrats democratically choose a candidate to be the nominee of the democratic party, accepting their decision (and the democratic process) by voting with the party in the general election would make you a loyal democrat. not a very difficult concept to grasp. pretty much the textbook definition of party loyalty. nothing about ‘blindly following’ anybody.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 1:02 AM:

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.

rmiller wrote on January 23, 2008 1:38 AM:

I am disappointed with Obama constantly trying to be a victim. Mr Obama does not have experience to be President. I'm concerned about all his votes. I expect a legislator to stand up for what they believe. Voting Present is ducking the issue. "I was against Iraq", then why was Cindy Shaheen's voice heard and not Obama's?

Pete wrote on January 23, 2008 1:56 AM:

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.

JTinSoCal wrote on January 23, 2008 1:58 AM:

Keep framing this as Barack v. Bill, Barack. Marginalize Hillary.

JTinSoCal wrote on January 23, 2008 2:08 AM:

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

PrometheusSpeaks wrote on January 23, 2008 2:18 AM:

The NYT is out and Zeleny doesn't even come close to reporting it this way. Please.

eatbees wrote on January 23, 2008 2:32 AM:

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

Mike wrote on January 23, 2008 2:47 AM:

So, are you going to post the darn link, which shows it's basically a non-story, at worst Obama not at his smoothest, but doing some pretty impressive multi-tasking anyway.

PrometheusSpeaks wrote on January 23, 2008 3:01 AM:

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

dodacrazy wrote on January 23, 2008 4:05 AM:

Well first I just love this group and as a group that shares their true thoughts! "Hello there"Question how fawn are you of choice with these candiates? When you really should look at who the media wants and that means journalist of liars and cheats .I welcome you to pick me to pcs. but how many fake web sites do you have or how many committed wire fraud this internet crap is getting old what about points of concern to Americans and not this crap of out did who nothing more then media humor just for sales.Don't you think the people should be told the truth of how courppt our system is and that the media has lost control to organize criminals supported by Cox's Enterprises who has major control of the news on air ,radio,newspapers and such. Wise up people and do you reasearch of the media wrong ways and learn more about tags of the controlling group that use others name for their personal profits by their lies.

DonnaG wrote on January 23, 2008 4:46 AM:

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."

Obama wins if he appeals to Dems wrote on January 23, 2008 5:10 AM:

Obama's losing it because he thought he was going to win in a landslide of hope and unity. Obama is shocked that he is losing to Clinton and doesn't have a plan b.

Mark wrote on January 23, 2008 5:21 AM:

What a lousy article. Embarrassing, really.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 6:35 AM:

Greg Sargent should APOLOGIZE for the horrible misrepresention in this post. Sargent was trying to distort and fan controversy. Neither the video or the reporter's own coverage show anything like this blog is reporting.

If Sargent does not aopologize, TPM should apologize for him. Your Clinton advocacy seems headed in the direction of propoganda.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 6:44 AM:

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.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 7:12 AM:

Psssssss. What I meant to say is TPM/EC/Greg Sargent owe their readers an apology for this manufactured "news" item.

random wrote on January 23, 2008 7:14 AM:

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.

Michael A wrote on January 23, 2008 7:37 AM:

I know its off topic, but see attached. Can anyone spell war crimes?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study

Also, it would have been nice if the gd senators read the gd NIE!!!!!!!! All the dead women and children and americans. All the devastation and destruction. Its an outrage.

Southpaw wrote on January 23, 2008 8:34 AM:

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

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 8:45 AM:

Wake up Greg.

Watch this video.

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

Then take this headline down.

And issue a clear and unequivocal apology.

You are a disgrace.

Kim wrote on January 23, 2008 8:49 AM:

"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?

jimijazz wrote on January 23, 2008 8:52 AM:

It's a failed smear job, greg and you know it. You always believe what ABC, NBC, CBS, tells you? You need to find another line of work. Perhaps work for the Hillary campaign. Oh, thats right you already do!

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 8:52 AM:

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.

Angry Vet wrote on January 23, 2008 9:05 AM:

You guys are idiots. Both sides. Stop shooting the messenger, okay?

If you look at the post in an objective manner, Greg was trying to hit a scoop, based only on the report by ABC. So it didn't pan out. Hell, he probably just got to work this morning!

Give the guy a break, k?

Jon wrote on January 23, 2008 9:06 AM:

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/

WWNPHD wrote on January 23, 2008 9:07 AM:

This can't really be the TPM headline. Totally disingenuous. The video makes it clear that he's casually joking around - he wasn't seriously calling it a cheap stunt.

TheFountainHead wrote on January 23, 2008 9:13 AM:

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

jhv wrote on January 23, 2008 9:14 AM:

greg, post the link and qualify your earlier statments.

its your job.

Southpaw wrote on January 23, 2008 9:15 AM:

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

Brian wrote on January 23, 2008 9:18 AM:

Just one of many additional reasons not to read the NY Times anymore.

This along with the Rah Rah run up to the Occupation of Iraq, Maureen Dowd, William Kristol, etc...

Southpaw wrote on January 23, 2008 9:18 AM:

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.

nizzy wrote on January 23, 2008 9:19 AM:

Yesterday, over on Swampland, where they have intelligent and informed commenters, TPM Election Central was prominantly mentioned......Essentially, that if you read the comments, you could easily close your eyes after view the vitriol lobbed at other Dems...And find this to be a Right Wingnut site......

Sean wrote on January 23, 2008 9:22 AM:

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.

Observant wrote on January 23, 2008 9:25 AM:

Yeah, the video shows that this was just ABC's spin. Obama wasn't testy at all, seemed to laugh off or even not notice much of what the NYT report was charging. The NYT guy just seems kinda rude. And ABC seems to be editorializing.

I agree -- you gotta update the headline on this one: "Obama blows off jerk reporter" perhaps. Or maybe "Obama laughs off agressive reporter" ??

Greg wrote on January 23, 2008 9:25 AM:

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

I updated as soon as I saw it.

Southpaw wrote on January 23, 2008 9:26 AM:

Now change the HEADLINE.

jhv wrote on January 23, 2008 9:28 AM:

thanks, greg

don't do that anymore.

Michael A wrote on January 23, 2008 9:29 AM:

Thanks Gregg, people really have got to chill out.

Rob Davies wrote on January 23, 2008 9:30 AM:

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

Jon wrote on January 23, 2008 9:30 AM:

Billary is already spinning SC, as just a black victory for Obama, Billary is shrewd.

I dont know maybe the reporter is working for Billary?

The Billary machine is pulling out all the stops.

They of course are the closest thing the Democratic party has to a government in waiting, they will do everything possible to make sure they are not derailed.

crayz wrote on January 23, 2008 9:31 AM:

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 wrote on January 23, 2008 9:37 AM:

stay tuned for a longer post on this

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 9:39 AM:

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.

Jon wrote on January 23, 2008 9:44 AM:

I wasn't jumping down Greg's throat . . .

and I step back from saying that the ABC reporter is working for the Billary machine.

Obviously he was very angry that Obama did not appreciate the genius of his snappy question. A little reporter vengeance, no? Fair and Balanced right . . . reporters have egos, too.

herb the verb wrote on January 23, 2008 9:54 AM:

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.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 9:55 AM:

Yesterday, over on Swampland, where they have intelligent and informed commenters, TPM Election Central was prominantly mentioned......Essentially, that if you read the comments, you could easily close your eyes after view the vitriol lobbed at other Dems...And find this to be a Right Wingnut site......

yep. it's a shame really. TPM used to have the best comments from its readers. things would get heated to be sure and could on occasion get ugly but the kneejerks and the vitriolic proselytizers were the exception not the rule.

Kripke wrote on January 23, 2008 9:57 AM:

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".

Liam wrote on January 23, 2008 9:58 AM:

So, even after you found out that you were wrong you still have left the misleading headline up. You wrote this item, before you had even viewed the video, or even had a second source. All you did was spin what you thought might have happened. You and Maureen Dowd would make a lovely couple.

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 10:02 AM:

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.

Southpaw wrote on January 23, 2008 10:09 AM:

Some anonymous posters are suggesting that it is unfair to "jump down Greg's throat" for merely reprinting bad journalism of another.

Sorry, but I beg to differ. Reprinting bad journalism without critical examination or independent analysis is, itself, bad journalism.

Here's just one supporting reference on the prevailing ethical standards for "provid[ing] accurate news":

http://www.uta.fi/ethicnet/sweden.html

"Be critical of news sources. Check facts as carefully as possible in the light of the circumstances even if they have been published earlier.

***

Newsbills, headlines and introductory sections must be supported by the text."

Amazing what a quick google search can do, huh? (Like, I dunno, find video of the supposed "tussle" that wasn't.)

mari wrote on January 23, 2008 10:15 AM:

How stupid. Change the headline and screw ABC.

david sieser wrote on January 23, 2008 10:16 AM:

I agree with Anonymous89. I am suspicious of all of these Obama supporters claiming they are "progressives" who will switch sides if Hillary gets the nomination. That's not progressive in my book;it's utterly and ridiculously ignorant. They call anyone who supports Clinton as "Hilbots".
This sounds like an R's in D clothing to me.

At this point I'm leaning toward Clinton. If Obama gets the nod, I'll pull the lever for him. The alternatives are not even close!

Bupalos wrote on January 23, 2008 10:21 AM:

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.

NCSteve wrote on January 23, 2008 10:24 AM:

Okay, I've noticed that Eric always seems to be the one posting at the obscenely early hours whereas Greg didn't get to work and see this until after 9:00.

Heh. You don't have to look at the bios to figure out who outranks who in the TPMEC op.

Audacious_One wrote on January 23, 2008 10:28 AM:

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?

Jon wrote on January 23, 2008 10:30 AM:

David Siser,

I think it most likely reflects folks frustration with the fact the Billary's Bush/Rove like politicking is working. People really want to clean house, sweep out the old Democratic establishment, but that establishment is not going to go without a fight.

For me Edwards or Obama.

But I have to admit, that at moments I have though, goddamn it I will vote for McCain, just to show the world that I cant take this kind of crap that the Billary machine is putting out . . . then I realize what the stakes are: judges, how far right Bush has pushed or system, and I take a deep breath.

Of course this is exactly the dynamic that Billary is counting on . . .

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 10:35 AM:

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

Greg wrote on January 23, 2008 10:42 AM:

here's the longer post:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/01/abc_news_badly.php

JC wrote on January 23, 2008 11:20 AM:

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

onceler wrote on January 23, 2008 11:21 AM:

I'm glad to see the update now, but what on Earth caused you all to run with this story, WIHTOUT HAVING SEEN THE VIDEO? I mean, are you serious? We're supposed to take you seriously about these stories and YOU HAVEN'T EVEN WATCHED the footage you refer to? This is better than TV cable news how, exactly?

Pete wrote on January 23, 2008 5:59 PM:

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.

linda wrote on January 23, 2008 9:10 PM:

Although you did go back and correct your original story, you should have viewed the video clip yourself before reporting on it. Repeating what you have read elsewhere without verification is not journalism - it's gossip.
Spreading gossip is like throwing confetti on a windy day and later trying to retrieve it. You can never be sure you have gotten it all back.
Do your own research and verify, verify, verify. Cardinal rule of journalism: "If your mother says she loves you, check it out!"

Donny- UK wrote on January 24, 2008 10:12 AM:

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!

Sherene wrote on January 24, 2008 5:09 PM:

Are we stubbornly going to hold on to the past?

It is time for us to start over. For that, we need a president who is a visionary, not wedded to maintaining the status quo.

Vote for Senator Obama for President.

"A beginner's possibilities are endless, an experts are few." (Buddhist proverb)

SciVo wrote on January 26, 2008 3:11 PM:

Hello, it may interest you to know that Jeff Zeleny is still misrepresenting the exchange, but in the New York Times. See "Clinton’s No. 1 Surrogate Clashes With No. 1 Rival" and "A Stress-Filled Week Shows Obama With a Blend of Humor and Fire."

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)