TPM only regurgitates stories when the slam Obama.

When the Times and ABC went after Hillary in January, Greg's post was all about how things weren't as bad as the MSM made them seem.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/176436.php

TPM just doesn't like Obama.

Posted at July 2, 2008 10:30 AM in response to Election Central Morning Roundup

I don't know why her supporters/team seem to have such bad political instincts. To me, all of this coverage (which her side seems to be pushing) makes her look like a supplicant -- asking Obama to help her pay her debts, looking for a spot in his administration, waiting for some apology for something. I don't think she is a supplicant but her supporters seem hellbent on putting her in that spot. I wish even one of them would say, "She's going to be great and do great things, regardless of what Obama does."

Posted at June 27, 2008 3:20 AM in response to Obama Donates To Hillary's Debt Relief

Totally amazing that you all manage still to have a big pic of HRC on the front page. I look forward to you liveblogging Obama's inaugural from Chappaqua!

Posted at June 7, 2008 1:05 AM in response to Andrews Goes Silent After Accusing Clinton Camp Of Racially Divisive Strategy

"The gist"? Really freaking amazing that you don't report what Obama actually said but instead post, as fact, your interpretation of what he said. Amazing.

Posted at May 31, 2008 10:09 PM in response to Obama Explains His Break From Trinity Church

The illegitmacy tour continues.

I don't why anyone thinks she's getting out. She can't very well turn around next week and concede. Her argument is that he is not the "real" nominee. She's in until the convention and beyond.

Posted at May 29, 2008 12:38 AM in response to Bill Clinton: Are Caucuses More Important Than Primaries?

No, there is Obama news. Just not here.

They didn't cover his speech yesterday where he had that great line about McCain going to Bush "hat in hand." That was a killer and it's a shame they didn't mention it.

Posted at May 28, 2008 12:55 PM in response to Hillary's Letter To Super-Delegates: I'm The One

I don't think TPM's the enemy.

I just think they like Hillary and think she's been mistreated (I don't agree) and sort of kind of think Obama is a fraud.

I think their coverage reflects that -- for example:

i) today's sort of condescending and pedagogical post in how to "fairly" discuss the non-metric of the popular vote;

ii) the complete non-coverage of Hillary's white person comments, which, by any measure was a real story, no matter whose side you're on;

iii) the non-coverage of Bill's assertion this weekend that he has never seen a candidate treated "so disrespectfully,";

iv) the endless flogging of "it's Obama's fault" on the RFK thing (which I defended HRC on); and

iv) the single minded devotion to the non-story of Obama purportedly failing to "take on" FOX, whatever that means or meant.

I imagine I'll get told that this is all crazy bias talk but too bad, that's what I think.

Posted at May 27, 2008 3:34 PM in response to Hillary-Backer AFSCME's Montana Mailer: Brought To You By "Your Union"

I'm with you. Particularly on "overly generous." I just think him not taking any MI delegates will be a nice talking point to show that the split (any split) in MI is a crock and shouldn't be seen as reflective of anything.

Posted at May 26, 2008 6:32 PM in response to Hillary Supporter Lanny Davis Suggests Proposals For Florida And Michigan

I agree that 50/50 is the fairest. The problem with it, I think, is that it will be immediately spun by HRC as a "backroom deal" that "nullifies" the vote of those that voted for her solely to "anoint" Obama, the "establishment" candidate, as the nominee. I think it's important that the resolution be enough in HRC's favor so that any further griping on this is seen as craven overreaching and is shut down.

Posted at May 26, 2008 6:09 PM in response to Hillary Supporter Lanny Davis Suggests Proposals For Florida And Michigan

I know. But, first, as someone else noted, HRC supporters were elected to fill the place of many "uncommitted" delegates. They will vote for HRC at the convention so seating them gives her delegates even though the "uncommitted" vote was, as you say, a vote against HRC.

On disenfranchisement, there's no way around it because it was not a real election. Obama's strongest argument is that the Michigan and Florida results don't really reflect the will of the people of those states and should be heavily discounted in the minds of supers. If he takes delegates even though no one was able to affirmatively vote for him, I think he'll be seen as "ratifying" the false elections.

Posted at May 26, 2008 6:01 PM in response to Hillary Supporter Lanny Davis Suggests Proposals For Florida And Michigan