I could certainly do without any further HRC campaign postmortem. I'll certainly be interested in continuing to read about her in the context of her role in Obama's campaign, and anything else of interest that she becomes involved in. Don't need to relive the primaries any more, though.

It's kinda sad, because we all like Greg and all. But, we have to kind of push him to actually address issues that are pertinent to the election. Please? Pretty please?

Me too. TPM was not Fair and Balanced during the primary season. Most commenters still aren't.

Actually, I appreciated Greg's analysis. There are still a lot of bloggers here arguing about the primaries. And there's still a great need for clarity on the points being argued.

That said, I do hope to see the post mortem stuff die down and more focus being placed on the general election. It's time to get past campaigning for the primary candidates. We're getting antsy aren't we? The general election is already an urgent matter.

Yeah, I'd just checked my Inbox, saw the email announcement come in from Al Gore, and immediately popped over to TPM for the lowdown, only to find it's on the down low.

Fair enough. Gore had his chance to endorse, but waited too long. We should all be upset that he waited until this moment, until the very moment his endorsement might distract from TPM's highly-anticipated Hillary-media-coverage postmortem.

And whatever pro-Hillary bias you Obamaniacs might try to read into TPM's postmortem, just remember it's nothin' compared to the evil genius that determined the timing of the Gore announcement.

Either that, or the bean-counters at TPM happened to check out Alexa's site ratings for June, and got word to the editors about the only surge that matters for the new media mavens:

http://www.alexa.com

Following the link is endless hours of fun. Plug in your favorite and most-hated websites to see how they compare. Spoiler alert: resentment and rumors = page hits.

Rec'd.

With apologies for responding like a prick on some random thread somewhere.

I completely agree. On June 3rd, when Obama clinched the needed number of delegates, not a single post on the Election Central homepage mentioned this. They had the speeches, but they didn't have a single story highlighting the historic event. I wrote an extremely scathing note concerning this, but thought better of posting it.

But honestly, you make such a good point, clearthinker, that I'm tempted to just post it as an afterthought.

ClearThinker, I was bothered by the Drudge connection and how Drudge drove the narrative.

Drudge is on the same email list as Josh & Greg. (thought this article does not list Greg, others do.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/sidney-blumenthal-uses-fo_b_99695.html

www.dailykos.com may be more to the liberal progressives likings these days. There, if a diary is stupid, it falls off the charts. :) I used to come here during the primaries, but now I'm sticking to dailykos and huffingtonpost

I totally agree.

I no longer come to TPM to catch up on the election news. TPM is NOT among the priamry sites for Election news or analysis- not anymore, anyways.

Frankly, much of the news on TPM is delayed and recycled. These guys have no strings or network to give an inside view of the Obama camp, while they apparently have a front seat ticket to the Clinton camp. That's the real problem.

Further, it doesn't seem as if TPM has resources or reach to expose the dificiencies of McCain and Co.

I come here primarily for the crowd. It's one of the very few places I get a sense of small cyber community. I don't feel like a stranger or being among strangers and don't have to introduce myself every time I login.

I have to say though Josh over the last few years has done an excellent job keeping the focus on the Bush administration scandals.

wow, it's all in the eyes of the beholder I guess. My perception has been that TPM has been wildly unbalanced in support of Obama. Certainly they never put up a headline as biased as the one they used for the RFK quote on any story about him.

TPM and Josh Marshall have a very middle of the road point of view. Not exactly D.C. Beltway or DLC but very accepting of the status quo regarding the Democratic Party. There is a battle going on for control of the party. Hardcore progressives are taking over at the grassroots level precinct by precinct. Moderates are being squeezed out. The wonks at TPM are more interested in following daily tracking polls than they are advancing progressive principles.

It's like TPM is trying to compete with the Pro-Hillary blog site of how Hillary Clinton coverage they can deliver. It is time to move on, she had a good run, and although I think John Edwards connecting more with working class Americans than Hillary did. I really think her blog site fans (the TPM staff) need to start looking at the bigger picture at play here, the general election.

My understanding is that TPM's mission includes breaking news coverage, in-depth analysis of current issues, and retrospective analysis of the media and cultural behavior. As an important perspective on the last of those, I found Greg's post entirely appropriate. It would also be interesting to see a similar piece on how Obama has been treated by the media -- not to mention Edwards, McCain, and the whole set of Republican also-rans.

It's not as exciting as what's happening at this very moment, I suppose, but that's no reason to discount usefulness of retrospective thought.

Oh hell yeah...I haven't been here much because nothing of any relevance is posted. Tomorrow is the day I take TPM off my readers if nothing pertinent is posted.

I have mentioned this before as a suggestion for what is important to talk about during this GE cycle, but I will mention it again:

Since (1) voter registration has been wildly successful in bringing new people into the political process; and (2)grass-roots mobilization has excited and involved more people than ever before in my memory (I can't tell you how many "events" are being sponsored within 30 miles of me in Atlanta, Ga), I think it might be important for a site like TPMElection to perhaps report on/serve as eyes and ears on process questions - like this site's remarkable investigative reporting on the attorneys general scandal. For example, how ARE those new registrations faring? Are local vote officials "concerned" about the #s of new registrants? Who are these officials? What are the "concerns?" (A "concern" was just articulated in Louisiana, BTW, and reported faithfully in the NYTimes as a legitimate "concern"). Are there moves in "red" state legislatures to erect even more obstacles to voting (I live in a voter ID state)?

I guess what is bothersome about "Clinton said something" postings is that they are "top-down" (from the Clinton ex-campaign no less), while the energy of this election cycle is a kind of diffuse energy - emanating(sp) from so many corners and sources. The "Clinton campaign (former?)said something today" is not only a top-down vision of what is "important," but is a remarkably static approach to this exciting election cycle scholars will be writing about for decades to come. I am new to "new media," but I thought that the gift of blogs and sources like TPM was that they are free to capture "news" and analysis in motion (kind of like the journals on DailyKos - not a plug, just an example of the kind of dynamism I'm talking about).

TPM and their love affair with Clinton have driven me away. She LOST, she lost without dignity, she lost due to her own poor planning, lousy staff and idiotic husband. Why do you still care?

What else is there to say? Oh, YEA, she was unfairly treated? Please be serious. I think this is the most idiotic part of this whole Hillry thing. Nobody but Hillary would refuse to concede on her opponent's biggest day, citing the need to tell the country "What does Hillary Want", and on the day that she finally concedes, it was all about HIllary and her glass ceiling and in my opinion, a very half hearted GO Obama.. I am a woman in my early 50's and if I had acted the way Hillary has acted throughout this entire campaign, I would not only expect to be villified, but I sincerely doubt if I would have any friends.

I am SO SO SO sick of dumb assed women crying over Hillary, saying they are voting for McCain. Just do it you delusional fools, and TPM, shut up about hillary already. She is gone and I am delighted.

It is her fault that these women are so out of control. She convinced them that she was mistreated. Now she needs to get out there and tell them that she lied AGAIN and she was treated better than all the guys put together.

Clear,
You said it. Having lost the primary, Hillary's battle axes are gonna when the postmortem.
ENOUGH!!!!
While the history of this primary battle between the established unstoppable party candidate being crushed by an insurgent is going to make for great study, this is not the time or place.
Our time is now! Can we please discuss whats coming, not what's gone.
The most important election in the history of the world is upon us, we would all do well to buckle down and deal with it.
?How about we dedicate an entire month to a Senator Clinton pity party.....starting after Nov 4th.

Yep, I'm fed up. The top headlines on the TPM Front page.

1) A regurgitated story about some scammer faking suicide. I actually clicked on it thinking they had found the guy. Nope.

2) A regurgitated story about Scott Bloch having buddies blog comments for him. Again old news. They posted this same story on June 13th. I suppose they think it is new "news" to tell everybody that they are going to look into TPM archives to see if it was done here? That is worthy of a top front page post? Jeeze!

3) While everyone with a heartbeat and access to cable or internet is talking about the Gore endorsement, TPM lists a poll with Obama barely edging McCain in Virginia?

Yeah..you could say I am pretty disgusted.

Some stories about Clinton can be relevant. Stories about media treatments of all major candidates are relevant as well.

But here I am, turning on my computer to specifically see if TPM got the rundown of Gore's speech, maybe if they posted a video of it, and find nothing.

Grrr... it's after 11 p.m. I caught a glimpse of it on the 10 pm showing of Countdown. Gore was running late. And then my dvr goes to record The Daily Show... sigh. I suppose I could've stopped the recording. But I assumed it would be here.

I'm not particularly fed up with TPM for covering a story that has, such as with Couric's comment, seen MSM airplay. This is a site concerned primarily with politics and all of its nooks and crankies.

Unlike the MSM, even if it wasn't Clearthinker first, someone here would have found the Pew/Harvard study, and pointed out the findings: the narratives supplied by the campaigns were covered fairly, based on a preponderance of the data. That shows the strength of the TPM community - which is more than a single article. It's worth it to debunk the sexism story here alone.

Then, it should die quickly as people realize the Pew study and discussion is interesting, but it's only a part of the story. The largest pool of data is the results of the primaries themselves. It isn't just what people hear, it's what we all believe, and how we act. And Democrats as well as cross over voters have chosen Obama over Clinton.

And now, for those of you who think this is a distraction, remember it isn't just electing a President that accomplishes change, though the president alone will likely determine the direction of the Supreme Court for the next 2-3 decades, and whether or not the laws of this country are actually enforced - directly, or indirectly (such as downsizing regulatory agencies) like the Bush administration.

It is also congress, and every representative is up for election, as well as about a third of the senate. These are the people who decide where we spend our money, with the President as the final gate. So if you want universal healthcare, education, reduction on fossil fuels, etc. don't just focus on the Presidency - look at your own state. TPM is one of the rare sites that has actually commented on key senate and house races.

I don't get the constant trashing of Greg et al. Don't like the posts? Read something else. It's their blog, fer chrissake!

Mitch

Answer to your question in the title: no.

Response to your post: it does not make any sense. Please learn to express yourself more clearly and succinctly.

The Gore endorsement isn't that significant or newsworthy. It would be news if Gore publicly stated he wasn't going to endorse Obama.

Guess what? Once someone had enough delegates to be the Democratic nominee, sooner or later -- and probably sooner -- Gore was going to endorse that person.

Given that it's about 10 weeks to the convention, there will probably be other relatively slow political news days as well.

I'm one of the not-fed-up-at-all with TPM.

But I'm also not still bitter that my first choice (Edwards) isn't the nominee either. (shrug)

No, I am not fed up with TPM.

"clearthinker" never has matched his description.

The over-amped nonsense of some supporters of both Hillary and Barack is an example of how many people make their choices of Presidential candidates on the basis of how they believe the candidates character lines up with their own character ... in a totally subjective manner. Evidence that meets the pre-chosen paradigm is embraced, evidence that contradicts the pre-chosen paradigm never happened.

Then, the entire outside universe is made subject to the same test: is this media outlet, concept, actual group of people or hypothesized group of people as fanatic for my candidate as I am ?

If so, they're good. If not they're out. And again, the evidence that supports the thesis is strong and convincing, while evidence that contradicts the thesis cannot be perceived.

Obama people: your guy won, and I'm mostly glad. Even though all objective evidence indicates he is mostly a centrist only marginally to the left of Clinton if at all, my meta-judgment of relative character is that America needs Mr Cool to lower our temperature. BUT -- the win was narrow, the Clinton constituency does exist and remains important to the narrative of ultimate victory.

If you can't respect the fact that Clinton-ites do exist, and that their universe generates news stories, and that TPM will cover those stories just as they cover a very wide variety of stories, just like a hypothetical newspaper we might wish to read (since we grew up reading the LA Times about the Kennedy and Johnson administrations while sucking up our Wheaties and Cheerios and Rice Chex) -- well it doesn't really speak very well to you living up to the ideals your candidate is putting forth.

I've never found TPM all that interesting, but then I've never found any of the political blogs consistently interesting. As much as the MSM is criticized, at least it still retains a few (though increasingly fewer) real reporters.

On TPMCafe Reed Hunt is asking what Congress is about to do with FISA. If we had good investigative reporting--either from the MSM or from the blogs--we might know. But reporting has been replaced with cheap talk (yes, opinion is cheap compared with reporting--and it generates more controversy which means more "hits" which means more advertising revenue). Most of the major blogs, in case you haven't noticed yet, are now exactly like the MSM. They are profit-making enterprises, which generate revenue by selling ads and which need to manage expenses to keep margins healthy. Given the cost of good reporting, I don't see the blogs increasing their reporting capabilities--and therefore I see them moving increasingly in the direction of cable news and talk radio. Cheap talk and a lot of pot stirring to draw viewers and drive up ad revenues--that's the way of the future, my friends. Just when you thought the MSM was dead, capitalism revived it and reproduced it among the very media that were supposed to replace it.

Featherfamily said it best. Clearthinker is upset that this website does not consistently conform to his preferred narrative based upon his embrace of a candidate whose character lines up with his view of himself. "Evidence that meets the pre-chosen paradigm is embraced, evidence that contradicts the pre-chosen paradigm never happened."

I don't know where Clearthinker has been living (Propagandaland, perhaps?), but the past week or so has seen a number of critical analyses in the press, on blogs and here at TPM cafe of what role the media/sexism played in the campaign. Like it or not, and whichever way those analyses turn out, that is a newsworthy and thought-provoking topic. It is not surprising that TPM would take this on. I suspect Clearthinker would not have been upset if TPM had posted something demolishing HRC or arguing that the media, in fact, was pro Clinton. Indeed, Clearthinker has evidenced a continuing fascination with HRC. As long as it's negative, though, I suppose it's ok.

It seems Clearthinker and his ilk are more interested in propaganda than discussion or debate.

A discussion about the news media's insanity is far more important than the fact that Gore finally decided to endorse Obama, the man who is already the nominee. It would have been a big story if he endorsed when there was a real race between Obama, Clinton and Edwards...but he didn't. The deed is already done.

This was hardly real, exciting or even all that important news. Any article that hi-lights the MSM absurdity is always useful. In this case it was more important that the Gore endorsement.

The Legion of the Unhinged, of course, will never see it that way. They are under the mistaken impression that because Obama has the nomination that all coverage must be about him. This isn't his website you mindless dorks. It belongs to Josh Marshall.

You don't like it...bugger off!

Fascinating information, though I really can't figure out how it relates to the disection of coverage of the HRC Campaign. Still, it's good to know.

I agree with the preponderance of comments on this thread. TPM is quite disappointing these days. And here is what I mean...

Is it supposed to be a big secret that around 3,000 activists in 50 states are training to be Obama Fellows this week? I was host to one of the 200 who are taking the training here in Ohio this weekend. In addition to the hundreds mobilized as Fellows, there are even more folks on the ground mobilized to support them, with housing and meals and space and supplies.

The day after Obama clinched the nomination, I attended a voter registration event organized by the campaign staff. About five minutes devoted to celebrating and then back to work.

I don't know if people in other states are experiencing the same level of coordination and mobilization. But if they are, I am hard pressed to see how John McCain can survive the tsunami that is about to break over his head. TPM is close enough to Virginia, a battleground state if ever there was one, to report on the campaign there. How about it?

Do the efforts of regular people even count? Because it seems to me that the real bias at TPM is to cover only what elected officials or their hacks and surrogates and sycophants say or do. And that is why TPM gets less and less relevant. Such people are not the only players in this election. You and I are players too. So far, some really important election events are taking place without attention from the MSM or the blogosphere. So, please TPM, cover this election!

Me, neither.  TPM rocks.

I'm sure glad that Greg and Eric aren't very thin-skinned!

In case you didn't catch it, Stewart, who has done a wonderful job exploring sexism in this election, analyzes the press and Obama here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/17/jon-stewart-mocks-media-f_n_107539.html

All the best,

Laura

As neither a HRC or Obama supporter through the primaries, I continue to find TPM useful. I am not interested in hearing any more HRC loss post-mortem. I know the coverage was sexist. Had this race been run 20 years ago, the racist aspects would have been more explicit, but where our society has made "progress" in not admitting its race biases all the time, it's conventionally acceptable to subject women to regular critique plus a bunch of irrelevant, misogynistic crap. I don't need a third-party analysis - I see it directly.

But what I am sick of is this constant bickering and need for both sides to demonize the other, even after the race is over. Really, most of the anti-HRC stuff coming from Obama supporters is noxious and useless. Useless. The critiques of Sargent's posts rarely give credence to the facts of the critique; instead, they leap to why "she deserves this" or how Obama had it so much worse. Or worse yet, having a "what? the media is misogynist" awakening now that Michelle Obama is the undeserving target. Kinda like HRC was in '92.

The inability to move on, or with good analytical comments worthy of blogposts excepted, the continued hrc hatred is tiresome, and does little to inspire. As I asked months ago, can't we be focusing on McCain?

NO!

As the clock ticks out on this blog, I would like to thank everyone for their comments here; the civility was quite high.

I would especially like to thank Josh and TPM for sponsoring such an open forum (kudos to Donna and Carol for bringing up this point) and for reading through the posts. Perhaps this has been a valuable exercise for everyone.