Emails prove TPM bias for Clinton
A prominent blogger friend of mine sent me this email thread today - which conclusively demonstrates a pro-Hillary bias at TPM. (as many of us have suspected). My blogger friend says that a staff person at TPM forwarded this to him by mistake. Now the TPM staff can no longer deny the cold, hard reality of their secret agenda.
I've copied the email thread below. You may need to read the thread from the bottom up.
<blockquote>
-----------------
To: hillster@hillaryclinton.com
From: gregsargent@talkingpointsmemo.com
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TPM Post
Hill - you are the best!
Love you,
Greg
---------------------------
To: gregsargent@talkingpointsmemo.com
From: hillster@hillaryclinton.com
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TPM Post
Yes, I'm still blogging away at TPM. Don't forget that I'm also gotalife and Matthew Weaver. If only the kool-aid drinkers knew it - LOL!
I have another title suggestion for you: "Poll finds that Clinton is more likeable than Obama"
I just had Chelsea mail you all some free Hillraiser t-shirts at the TPM headquarters.
xoxoxo,
H
------------------
To: hillster@hillaryclinton.com
From: gregsargent@talkingpointsmemo.com
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: TPM Post
Hill,
I will do as you suggest. I can always count on you for independent analysis and suggestions. I swear I wouldn't have a job here if it wasn't for you. Halo 3 rocks, thanks!
Are you still blogging at TPM as "Present" and Otto F? You really know how to rattle those Obamabots!
Can't wait to see you again. The shots are on me next time, Madam President.
Love ya,
Greg
------------------------
To: gregsargent@talkingpointsmemo.com
From: hillster@hillaryclinton.com
Subject: Re: Re: Re: TPM Post
Gregy-poo,
You don't want to write some silly little story about me not being the Vice-President, do you? Everyone is writing that story.
What about something unique? How about a story about how my path to the nomination isn't mathematically impossibel since every remaining superdelegate could in theory endorse me next week? You could even title it "Hillary's path to the nomnination not at all impossible." Or even better would be "Some say Hillary could be the nominee"
Did you get the x-box360 I sent?
Can't wait to see you and all the TPM boys when I'm back in NYC.
Kisses,
H
-------------------------------
To: hillster@hillaryclinton.com
From: gregsargent@talkingpointsmemo.com
Subject: Re: TPM Post
Hi Hill,
Glad you enjoyed the post and the creative title. I couldn't have done it without you. I'm working on another one that discusses how unlikely it is that you'll be the Vice-Presidential nominee. Do you have any title suggestions for that one?
Thanks for sending the box of chocolates last week but remember that Josh is allergic to nuts.
Take care,
Greg
----------------------
To: gregsargent@talkingpointsmemo.com
From: hillster@hillaryclinton.com
Subject: TPM post
Greg,
Thank you for your post today at Election Central about the Florida and Michigan delegates and the possible scenarios for resolution. I appreciate your even handed approach and giving my point of view a chance.
I especially enjoyed your title, "Obama hates Florida and Michigan voters."
All the best,
Hill
</blockquote>
As I have to tell my son every couple of weeks: lightsabers aren't real. Neither is this email thread. Neither is the alleged TPM Clinton bias.
TPM does have a bias against an edit function though.
May 30, 2008 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's also interesting to me that I've posted two blogs in the last 24 hours. This one is silly but is on the recd list in the cafe.
The other one is here and didn't make it yet even though I posted it much earlier: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/why-polls-in-may-even-by-surve.php
The second post (in my opinion) is very significant because it shows that the polls coming out of Michigan that say Obama is losing to McCain are wrong.
May 30, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was nothing. You should see their Twitter logs.
May 30, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just want to let everybody know, for historical reference, that May 30 was the day Joan of Arc was burned at the stake.
I just automatically think of May 30 as Joan of Arc Burning on a Stake Day, in case that ever pops up in conversation and it seems inexplicable or inappropriate to you.
That's just how I remember it's May 30.
So don't freak out or make a big deal out of it if I bring it up.
May 30, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny!
May 30, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Yoda.
I figured this out, however the good news is that Senator is toast. She has no chance left, Pelosi has made it clear, she won't let this to go to the convention, and so have Reid, and Dean. Donna Brazile has also made it clear that there would be no gain for the democratic party to have this primary to go to the convention.
So my assumption, is that TPM will support fully Senator Obama after Tuesday.
Do you agree?
May 30, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The whole point of the post is that it's silly to say that TPM has a Hillary bias. It just doesn't exist.
TPM is already behind Obama (and Clinton) in the sense that TPM reports from a progressive perspective.
May 30, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. I agree that TPM as a whole doesn't exhibit a pro-Hillary bias (especially not front page), but on the other had I have to disagree with your assertion that it is silly to perceive a bias.
Greg has been making the case for anti-Hillary bias in mainstream media coverage for a good long while, and I think that has colored his approach to reporting on the primary contest. I actually don't have a big problem with that, although I wish he would more often recognize when he is not just reporting on, but is buying into the Clinton campaign's framing of events and issues.
It's possible that a lot of the anger directed against him is engendered by the fear that a bastion of independent critical reporting like TPM could be co-opted, more than the fear that he might be manipulating his readers.
That's a legitimate fear, and it's right for readers to keep TPM on their toes. In the past I've found myself begging for a factual correction on a story about John McCain, which probably has me pegged as a Republican sympathizer (as if!) - but I want to be able to rely on TPM for honest, reliable reporting and commentary regardless of the political preferences of the reporter or the subject. As long as I have that, Greg can don a pantsuit and tattoo "I Luv Hillary" across his forehead, for all I care.
May 30, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
ARGH!
EMAILS! SHE MAILS!
LOTS OF SUPPORTING FEMALES!
WRITE UP A POST
HOW OBAMA IS TOAST
STANDING UP SHE CAN PEE MALE
WENCH HILLARY CAN HANDLE ME HIGH TECH
LET ME EXPLORE HER SILICONE VALLEY!
ACQUIRE! MERGE! MARAUD! DILUTE! DILUTE!
ARGH!
May 30, 2008 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
HAHA!...WHAT?!?
May 30, 2008 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
May 30, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone started selling t-shirts with ACQUIRE! MERGE! MARAUD! DILUTE! DILUTE! yet?
May 30, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good to see you around Peet.
May 30, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do you explain the headline that TPM ran all day long a couple weeks back claiming that Warren Buffet had come out in support of Obama but when you actually read the story you found out he liked both Democratic candidates and only endorsed a Democrat to win.
TPM is a tool for Obama, get it right.
May 30, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe TPM got it right. Here is the quote that explains it:
"He is my choice," Buffett said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080519/ts_alt_afp/germanyusinvestpoliticsbuffett_080519163709
The Yahoo News title to that article is "US billionaire Buffett backs Obama for president."
Anyone else want to offer evidence of TPM bias one way or the other?
May 30, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately the AP story TPM linked to did not include that quote. And even you prefer to gloss over the conditional "... but that since it appeared Obama would win the party's nomination, 'I will be very happy if he is elected president.'" Certainly not the definitive endorsement that TPM, you and this AFP newswire report make it out to be.
But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good smear job as long as Saint Obama comes out the winner on TPM.
May 30, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. Who cares what Buffett thinks? I don't.
2. He did endorse Obama. Therefore,...
3. TPM's headline was factually correct.
I just disagree with you on this point. If you have another example of TPM bias, I'm open minded and would consider any evidence from either side.
May 30, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love random information like that... thanks!
May 30, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, what? "lightsabers aren't real"?
That sucks, but this post was great!
May 30, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doht! You beat me to it, John.
May 30, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. From what I have seen they favored Clinton, simply on the following - bias polls, and lack of reporting on the Super Delegates.
May 30, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Say what now? Lack of reporting on the superdelegates? Try this page:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/superdelegates/
There's a near daily accounting of superdelegate news. They've reported every single superdelegate endorsement probably within 24 hours, often on the front page of TPM.
Only recently have they slacked a little on SD announcements because the race is over and Obama is the presumptive nominee - so why obsess about it?
On the polls - I WANT them to report the polls but WE have to realize that polls can be inaccurate. But that's not TPM's fault. They've posted plenty of polling news that seemed beneficial to Obama that turns out not to be the case. Remember, some polls had him winning Texas's primary.
May 30, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Joan of Arc is Alive and Well Done! Happy May 30th!
May 30, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, I think of it as the day in 1416 when the Council of Constance, called by the Emperor Sigismund, a supporter of Antipope John XXIII, burns Jerome of Prague following a trial for heresy.
So I just think of it as The Council of Constance burns Jerome of Prague Day.
Please don't confuse me.
May 30, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I always thought TPM was affiliated with the American Friends of the Martian Space Party.
NOT INSANE!
May 30, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
For me May 30 is always the day that Christopher Marlowe was stabbed to death in 1593, in Deptford. With his own knife.
You know, it's just another one of those mnemonic devices.
May 30, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
O yeah - and Voltaire died.
May 30, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Finally!
May 30, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again?
May 30, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, I like the front page, muckraker and the cafe - election central has problems. I don't know if it was "bias" but I was very annoyed by today's post "Hillary Gets Endorsement Of Newspaper Editorial Board That Heard R.F.K. Assassination Remarks"
Not only is the headline itself obnoxious, Greg Sargent decides to close with this completely unnecessary dig: "Clearly, the people who actually heard her make the assassination comments first hand were not terribly offended by them." This implies those who watched the video and were terribly offended obviously missed something the editors "actually heard" by being there live. WTF, I actually heard what she said ... in our land we call it STREAMING VIDEO.
Something can be both factually accurate and biased. But in this case - particularly in light of the heartfelt explanations as to why the RFK reference resonated negatively with most of the readers - it was just mean spirited. It comes across as a dig from someone who feels validated by the information they have relayed. Hence the feeling of bias.
May 30, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I'm a bit twisted, but I considered both the headline and the "dig" you cite to be snarky--it just highlights the idiocy of the listeners and the big-fuck-deal-ness of the endorsement.
But that's just me. I don't need biased news; I create my own bias.
May 30, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't see it that way initially, but now that you have provided that reading, I can. But I can't say for sure whether that was what Greg intended.
Guess what I need is a snark-o-meter graphic to accompany posts.
May 30, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
For me it didn't come across that way. But I like your reading of the motivations much better than my own and I can see a reasonable doubt ... so I'll go with your interpretation.
Still, it's a crappy thing to be glib about and I think many people had the same reaction as me.
May 30, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice subtle snark there with 'Josh is allergic to nuts.' Way to go! I'm glad to see the left blogosphere is lightening up some as we reach the end of the primary season AT LAST.
May 30, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink