I will never read political blogs the same way again.  I've seen so much nonsense passing for insightful analysis.  As I've asked before were all these folks always this stupid and I just didn't notice it before?

For that matter, were they always so full of themselves and so sleazy.  From Salon's War Room on the WVWV "controversy",

On Wednesday, at the main TPM site, Marshall asked, "Does that group doing voter-suppression calls in North Carolina have ties to the Clinton campaign?" (He later updated the post to walk back any implicit suggestion that there was "Clinton campaign complicity in the group's activities.") Three hours after he wrote that post, Marshall published a new one, this one titled "Keystone (cops) Voter Registration." In it, he acknowledged, "We've looked into the group's activities in other states and at least outside of North Carolina it's really difficult to figure out whether the group was up to no good or just mind-numbingly incompetent ... Setting aside the incidents in North Carolina, that we're still looking into, it seems like in the rest of the country the group was involved in legitimate voter-registration efforts for a targeted group even though they went about it in a heavy-handed way and sometimes confused voters by failing to note key registration deadlines."

It was good of Marshall to acknowledge that. But even considering the pace of the blogosphere, the responsible, ethical thing to do would have been to wait before flatly stating that voter suppression was going on. It's not even as if he would have had to wait that long: Within just three hours after Marshall said WVWV was "doing voter-suppression calls," he was able to report that -- even if he still believed there might be some wrongdoing afoot in the North Carolina calls -- the pattern of WVWV's recent activities nationally was one of incompetence, not malevolence.

On Thursday, I spoke to a seemingly irritated Marshall and asked him whether he stood by his stories. Marshall responded, "Yeah. I mean, what is there not to stand behind?"

LINK

Former DNC chairs: Hillary would beat McCain today -- Obama wouldn't
Posted: 01:15 PM ET

(CNN) - Seven former Democratic National Committee chairs who support Hillary Clinton's presidential bid, and the family of one who is deceased, released a letter Friday arguing that she is the candidate best-equipped to beat John McCain in November.

The letter was signed by former party leaders Kenneth Curtis, Charles Manatt, Debra DeLee, Don Fowler, Steve Grossman, Pennsylvania Governor Edward Rendell, and Clinton adviser Terry McAuliffe. It was also signed by the family of the late Ron Brown, who served in the Clinton administration.

They write that "if the election were held today, Hillary would beat Senator McCain, but Senator Obama would lose to the presumptive GOP nominee."

"Hillary has run one of the most formidable campaigns in the history of our Party," the chairs wrote, listing Clinton's primary season victories. "Her base of support includes women, Hispanics, seniors, Catholics, middle and low income Americans, and rural, suburban and urban voters. That's a formidable coalition tailor-made for victory in a November general election.

"...We encourage you to continue to fully consider Hillary Clinton and the fact that she is qualified and accomplished. Too much is at stake for us not to consider deeply the choice we must make for our Party and our country."

This after George Bush.

Why, why, why won't she let the next generation of (no-nothing bonehead consultants) pseudo-leadership by tantrum, with a more appropriate stooge-entourage, take over the Republican Palace?

If Sen Clinton (is allowed to) win ... [Do the Apocalypso: sky falling, world's end, tectonic cracks in Earth's mantle allowing unspeakable demons to emerge and dance around the place like they owned it and that's not even the half of it ... &c]

I am astonished that the far-left bloggers are affecting our election by influencing the media, print-journalist and elected offcials just to experiment with the process.  They cannot believe that Obama is the best choice. Obama is weak, unvetted, inexperienced and has many questionable characters in his past that speak to his lack of  judgement.  The far-left bloggers surely must be interested in the experiment only.

Look how the bloggers performed after the last debate on ABC.  Obama did poorly.  They swarmed the internet sites and media with complaints about the format; nothing about Obama's performance.  Soon the media were picking up the cue.  The endless unfair reporting and harsh character assignations against Hillary, Bill and even Chelsea are absurd.

Middle America has saved this election from being taken over by these guys but this is still a very close race.  We need guidance about how to be Hillary activists.  

Anyone who has suggestions about how to correct biased reporting along with contact info regarding who we need to write to should start adding that info to your comments.

You link to the Guardian UK which is certainly trying to expand its US online presence.

Its CIF (blog)coverage of the Democratic campaign (with Tomasky as chief writer) has been totally in the tank for Obama. UK papers are always fiercely partisan:  there is not a  tradition of non-partisanship.  However, this forum has become a real cesspool, with fabricated, libelous, obscenely misogynistic comments about Clinton left to stand....and the Guardian claims to be a quality newspaper.

There seem to be two dogged Clinton supporters who carry on responding, but they are very lonely voices.

Check it out--consider whether you want to link there any more or whether people think there is any point in posting there,  I think its blog falls well below the standard of anything else you link to.